Is gay a choice or innate....or both?

[LittleNipper]

So either homosexuality is natural or unnatural. It sometimes sounds like it gets accused of both-in a bad way.

I don't believe in Darwinism, though many may.

 

[LittleNipper]

So do you feel this behavior has potential for this-worldly bad consequences by itself, or are you worried about bad consequences being imposed as a punishment by a displeased god?

I am concerned that both have potential. Although, my opinion is that GOD's lack of interaction is all that is necessary to cause society to consume itself..

 

[Lursa]

I don't believe in Darwinism as do many.

If you mean evolution, then I hope you're not bragging. Willful ignorance indicates a mind impervious to reality and facts. You choose to rely on a story book. Isnt America great, that you can do so without fear? That's the protection of the Constitution...not a sky man.

 

[vegas giants]

If you mean evolution, then I hope you're not bragging. Willful ignorance indicates a mind impervious to reality and facts. You choose to rely on a story book. Isnt America great, that you can do so without fear? That's the protection of the Constitution...not a sky man.

Hes right up your pro life alley

 

[LittleNipper]

If you mean evolution, then I hope you're not bragging. Willful ignorance indicates a mind impervious to reality and facts. You choose to rely on a story book. Isnt America great, that you can do so without fear? That's the protection of the Constitution...not a sky man.

People who willfully do not attend religious services must be in a similar boat. So sorry you missed the historic data regarding the Flood of Noah's day and are willfully ignorant of the data surrounding this catastrophic event.

2 Peter 3:5-7

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:​

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

 

[Lursa]

People who willfully do not attend religious services must be in a similar boat.

Who says I dont?

So sorry you missed the historic data regarding the Flood of Noah's day and are willfully ignorant of the data surrounding this catastrophic event.

I've seen it, it's hilarious. It's another example of your willful ignorance if you believe it. (The Ark, not the flood)

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Let's be clear. I NEVER mentioned morality

Nothing you mention will ever make any of my gay friends (except one) want to interact with a vagina and nothing you mention will ever convince me I should taste a dick.
The one gay friend who has, has only ever had hetero sex with this one gal he has been in love with since he was a teen, and he just gets the itch once in a great while.
It's a one-off come on over kind of thing, dinner at her place, watch favorite movies, have deep conversations about whatever and suddenly they're in bed and the next day he's back to being his old self, but glowing about how sweet she is to him and how he could live without the sex but he just loves her so much and it makes her so happy.

But that's ONE out of....oh geez, something like twenty gay friends I know?
He's a fairly masculine kind of guy I suppose, although better groomed than most women I know, he is always perfectly dressed and beyond metrosexual in his grooming habits.
He's the kind of guy that looks so good that straight gals almost always mumble "what a waste" when they see him.
And that's because he's maybe mentioned his hetero hookup gal pal to something like four people as far as I know.
I am sworn to secrecy about who he is or who she is, but I figure there's no harm in talking about it anonymously here.
I am just forbidden to mention it in person to anyone I know in real life.
He is in the fashion advertising business.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I totally understand and appreciate the sentiment. It is frustrating to think that no matter how sure we are of something or how much evidence we seem to think we have for it, there can always be newer observations which can upend the whole thing. Our latest observations and experience are always contingent and changing. There should be some way to step outside of our those contingencies and fallibilities and know things for certain; to know that some truth claims are "absolute" and "ultimate".

But how?

I think sometimes it's possible to confuse "absolute truth" with "truth" - tricking ourselves into thinking that because we can't know the one (absolutely), the other must therefore also be unknowable.

I suspect in our hubris as humans who are able to learn (which ability we know) we can also make things altogether too complicated, thereby questioning what we know to somehow conclude therefore that we cannot know - you know? (And wasn't that fun? )

For instance - a table. What do we know? Well, through observation and prior learning and categorization and verification, we know it's a table. We have this truth. It IS a table.
Do we know everything there is to know about the table though? Probably not. Is it made of wood or some other material? Dunno, it's painted, and we've not scratched off the paint to observe its makeup yet. Does that mean our knowing it is in fact a table negates that truth because we don't know this particular aspect of it? I think not.

Philosophically speaking, we can't even be sure that everything we know as reality right now is not some electronic input being fed to our brains through an electrode, Matrix movie style, by some aliens conducting an experiment. What the ultimate, absolute truth could be is that we are some kind of disembodied brain in a vat somewhere with a bunch of electrodes attached to it. Hey, it's theoretically and conceptually possible. The only reason we don't think that is is because we have no observations to support that scenario as the ultimate truth- not that we know the ultimate truth and we know that can't possibly be it. Lots of weird things are theoretically possible.

As humans, we've certainly proven we can weary ourselves into utter futility asking all manner of "what ifs" - even if they're often critical to the process of learning; but we also need to ask ourselves if in the asking we are indeed learning and growing, or merely sending ourselves into a state of "contemplative constipation?" I think it's a fair question. Ultimately, life is practical, not theoretical. Theory has its place - but only to reinforce, or lead us to the practical.

< to be continued >

 

[EdwinWillers]

< continued >

I think this idea that we can somehow know ultimate and absolute truth somehow comes from the pre-scientific era, where there was this idea that we could know ultimate truth, outside of our most current sense data and observations, by some other means: religious faith or belief in some kind of revelation. But as those truth claims were shown to be false with further observations, it has become clear that that is not a reliable means of short-circuiting our latest observations and knowledge. There is no master-6th-sense through which we can step outside the contingencies and fallibilities of our 5 senses and know what the real, "ultimately true" answers are.

So if knowledge through faith or revelation is out, what's left? You speak as if there is yet another way of achieving "absolute knowledge and understanding", and knowing we are finally there, outside of the process and method of gaining that information through the method of constant new observations and experiences.

What could it be?

Well, I think there are several false premises here that must be addressed before answering your question. First: I once heard a very learned man utter this sentence: "There is no such thing as an absolute!" That statement is, of course, an absolute itself - and the irony was apparently lost on him. He was a psychologist recommended to me to help me through some stress I was experiencing. I never returned.

Second is this false notion of "faith" many have, being some sort of blissfully ethereal, fairy-like euphoria that only "spiritually religious" people have. And most frequently, it's educated (often scientifically educated) people who hold such a belief, which I find quite ironic - their theory being that if they can't observe it, it therefore cannot exist. Well, the truth is (and this one's definitely an absolute) we cannot survive without faith, nor can science. Indeed, faith is built into the very fabric of life - and science. We theorize, we test and experiment, we observe - and then what? Admitting as you did above that it's possible with further observation to realize what we observed previously might have been wrong - how is it even possible to draw any conclusions, let alone proceed with further observations if we don't have faith in what we previously observed? Each theory, test, experiment, and observation is a step. And if we can't put some semblance of trust in our conclusions from previous steps, how can we take future ones?

Belief is giving mental assent to something. But belief is not faith, though often they're used interchangeably, but nevertheless improperly. We can believe it'd be safe to board an airplane to some destination; safety record, stats, competent crews on ground and in cockpit... but such belief is not faith. Faith is actually boarding the plane, putting your trust in all the reasons why you believe to spur you into action, or to obedience. Faith isn't irrational; it's highly rational, objective. It just has that "religious ring" to it many don't like. Plus, it involves action, commitment.

One needn't have absolute knowledge of every aspect of a table to trust we can set something upon it. Neither do we need absolute knowledge of what we observe through the scientific process to employ it to practical use in our lives. Similarly, we don't need to "observe" God, let alone know everything about Him to know He in fact does exist; there exists plenty of rational "proofs" (if you will) of His existence. The primary problem I see with most who claim He doesn't exist is not because of the scientific process, but simply because they refuse to accept the very idea of His existence - which underlying reasons can be many, but which usually boil down to one or two logical consequences that were they to admit to (believe) in His existence they'd have to accept - and that they simply refuse to do.

It's not really possible to proceed from here until that issue is first addressed.

 

[Aristaeus]

Being born gay and it being a choice aren't the only options. It could also be nuture and environmental influences.

It would be interesting to see if there are identical twins where one is gay and the other not, because if there are that would indicate you're not born gay.

 

[vegas giants]

Being born gay and it being a choice aren't the only options. It could also be nuture and environmental influences.

It would be interesting to see if there are identical twins where one is gay and the other not, because if there are that would indicate you're not born gay.

They have done such twin studies and the odds are no more than average when one is gay that the other will be gay

 

[ataraxia]

I don't believe in Darwinism, though many may.

Who said anything about Darwinism? We were talking about nature. Do you believe in nature?

Do you believe homosexuality is natural or unnatural?

 

[ataraxia]

I am concerned that both have potential. Although, my opinion is that GOD's lack of interaction is all that is necessary to cause society to consume itself..

As far as this-worldly consequences: Potential to do what? Lower population growth if not everyone is reproducing?

As far as otherworldly consequences: either there are no this-worldly consequences and God has to impose them, or God will intervene and impose those consequences Himself. So for your assertion above to be valid, you would still have to answer question one and tell us how you think society would consume itself if we leave homosexuals alone.

 

[Aristaeus]

They have done such twin studies and the odds are no more than average when one is gay that the other will be gay

Still not a choice though.

 

[vegas giants]

Still not a choice though.

I disagree. Choice is likely one of the factors involved

 

[LittleNipper]

Who said anything about Darwinism? We were talking about nature. Do you believe in nature?

Do you believe homosexuality is natural or unnatural?

I believe GOD's original intention was that a man would marry a woman and start a family. As a result of the FALL, sin come into this world and corrupted what GOD originally created perfect. Homosexuality is just one of the many results. Is it now natural for man to be good? However, is it correct not to a least try?

 

[ataraxia]

I believe GOD's original intention was that a man would marry a woman and start a family. As a result of the FALL, sin come into this world and corrupted what GOD originally created perfect. Homosexuality is just one of the many results. Is it now natural for man to be good? However, is it correct not to a least try?

I guess it depends on how you define "good". Is good something that can be judged by only this-worldly results- like actions which create more health, prosperity, happiness, peace, etc...? Or does it mean things which can not be judged by their this-worldly results and are just things we have to do because God said so?

So, for example, if God had said "don't ever tap your head and rub your tummy at the same time", and that was considered a sin, are we to just accept it without questioning what this-worldly consequences it might have (how it might affect health, prosperity, happiness, peace, etc...), or are we to just accept it and stop asking questions, because he is just going to hurt us if we don't listen?

 

[ataraxia]

One needn't have absolute knowledge of every aspect of a table to trust we can set something upon it. Neither do we need absolute knowledge of what we observe through the scientific process to employ it to practical use in our lives. Similarly, we don't need to "observe" God, let alone know everything about Him to know He in fact does exist; there exists plenty of rational "proofs" (if you will) of His existence. The primary problem I see with most who claim He doesn't exist is not because of the scientific process, but simply because they refuse to accept the very idea of His existence - which underlying reasons can be many, but which usually boil down to one or two logical consequences that were they to admit to (believe) in His existence they'd have to accept - and that they simply refuse to do.

It's not really possible to proceed from here until that issue is first addressed.

Sure. If I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying is that we don't have to know everything about a table to know enough about it to feel comfortable using it to put heavy things on, using it for everyday activities, etc... We know enough about it to be able to use it. Even though we may not know "ultimate truth" or "absolute knowledge" about tables, we know enough to have faith that it works and use it.

And similarly, following that line of thinking, I don't have to know everything about aeronautical engineering to get on a plane and trust it with my life, or I don't have to know everything about anatomy and pathology to go ahead with that surgery my doctor is recommending. Not even the engineer or the surgeon have to know everything and have absolute knowledge about those things to recommend them. They know enough. We have faith that we know enough about all these things to go ahead and use them.

This is all fine, and so far it seems to me we agree. So far so good.

But I see something a little different here in this discussion. It's a like you have 9 out of 10 doctors recommending surgery for a particular condition for you, but you saying that you don't trust them because they could be fallible, and don't have absolute knowledge of the subject, and the truth could be something else. Now to me, THAT does not seem follow from the line of thinking above. It is true that the truth could be something else and all those experienced experts could be wrong- but how would you know? Because you seem to talk sometimes in ways that suggest you have a way of knowing more than all those experts who have more observations and experience in that field than you. Other than some kind of 6th sense, divine revelation, insight into ultimate truth, or other such access to absolute knowledge of the subject (or at least more privileged access), where could such knowledge be coming from?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I believe GOD's original intention was that a man would marry a woman and start a family. As a result of the FALL, sin come into this world and corrupted what GOD originally created perfect. Homosexuality is just one of the many results. Is it now natural for man to be good? However, is it correct not to a least try?

Wow.
Looks like "god" really ****ed it all up. Seems sort of like a Cluster-F Fire Drill, like why would "god" do all that knowing that it was only going to fail?
Seems like an asshole imo.

 

[LittleNipper]

I guess it depends on how you define "good". Is good something that can be judged by only this-worldly results- like actions which create more health, prosperity, happiness, peace, etc...? Or does it mean things which can not be judged by their this-worldly results and are just things we have to do because God said so?

So, for example, if God had said "don't ever tap your head and rub your tummy at the same time", and that was considered a sin, are we to just accept it without questioning what this-worldly consequences it might have (how it might affect health, prosperity, happiness, peace, etc...), or are we to just accept it and stop asking questions?

GOD is GOOD. Whatever GOD wants is for our good. And whatever goes against GOD's perfect will is evil.
Mark 10:17-21
17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’ ”
20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”
27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

Luke 18:18-27
18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’ ”
21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”
27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

And here also lies the proof that JESUS CHRIST IS THE LORD GOD. Because it is ONLY by believing on HIM one can be saved. It is with JESUS CHRIST that one is saved. CHRIST makes our salvation possible.

 

[LittleNipper]

Wow.
Looks like "god" really ****ed it all up. Seems sort of like a Cluster-F Fire Drill, like why would "god" do all that knowing that it was only going to fail?
Seems like an a-----e imo.

You certainly do not sound anything like a "Peaceful Warrior." GOD did it because HE foreknew that there would be individuals born only in this evil world who would come to love the LORD and HE predestined that they would be saved. What Satan meant for evil, GOD changed into good.

 

[ataraxia]

GOD is GOOD. Whatever GOD wants is for our good. And whatever goes against GOD's perfect will is evil.
Mark 10:17-21
17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’ ”
20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”
27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

Luke 18:18-27
18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’[A] ”
21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”
27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

So then what that "good" is should be able to be articulated by appeal to this-worldly results and consequences, no?

If something makes no sense why it must be "good", and we can't articulate it in terms of this-worldly reasons, we are just to accept it on faith?

So does this mean that you cannot really give us any this-worldly reasons for your position, and we are just to accept it because God said so? That would be true even if he had said "don't tap your head and rub your tummy at the same time"? Is this like a game of "Simon says"?

 

[LittleNipper]

So then what that "good" is should be able to be articulated by appeal to this-worldly results and consequences, no?

If something makes no sense why it must be "good", and we can't articulate it in terms of this-worldly reasons, we are just to accept it on faith?

So does this mean that you cannot really give us any this-worldly reasons for your position, and we are just to accept it because God said so? That would be true even if he had said "don't tap your head and rub your tummy at the same time"? Is this like a game of "Simon says"?

GOD has provided illustrations of what happens when people turn their backs on GOD. And the destruction of Sodom is just one example. The Flood is another. The 10 Plagues of Egypt another. The fall of the Tower of Babel is another. The destruction of Jericho is yet another. Evil has its behavior traits and its ultimate punishment eventually catches up with it.

 

[Gordy327]

If publicly accepted, such choices will encourage experimentation among the naïve, and such experimentation is the stepping stone towards becoming habitual. And this is the destructive damage that is inflicted upon the immature within the society at large.

WHat "experimentation" would that be? You have quite the active imagination.

 

[Gordy327]

GOD has provided illustrations of what happens when people turn their backs on GOD. And the destruction of Sodom is just one example. The Flood is another. The fall of the Tower of Babel is another. The destruction of Jericho is yet another. Evil has its behavior traits and its ultimate punishment.

All mere biblical myths.