The irony about this whole thread is that [MENTION=5145]AKM[/MENTION] is actually standing up for gay rights. Homophobia stems from lack of communication. The people who attack her for being transparent are actually a cause of the problem because they promote hypocrisy from people who are homophobic. Hypocrisy is toxic for mankind; pretending to agree for the sake of popularity but secretly feeling a different way. Letting thoughts manifest themselves internally without inviting open discussion, that's where the problem is. I don't think [MENTION=5145]AKM[/MENTION] hates gay people. She just didn't have the cookie cutter response that our liberal forum community expects. She had the courage to give an honest response to a thread started by a person who is openly gay on the forum. Very transparent, very humanitarian of her.
The Gay Gene
- Thread starter Saru Inc
- Start date
I just have to point out that people please be aware it could be rooted in biology even if there is not a cookie cutter gene for it.
Genetics do not always give rise to a certain biology, there is also epigenetics "literally above the gene" and other physiological factors. There may even be a combination of genes acting together. Or, like I mentioned earlier, the gene of another being involved (mother's genes in pregnancy) and not necessarily the gene of the person, and various other theories that are just now coming to light. Just because it isn't genetic, does not mean its not biological.... That is because sometimes special genes may even mess up and not necessarily provide the right result (like chulo mentioned with the SRY gene being missing from the sex gene, which means that SRY protein will not form. The SRY protein is the biology of it, the SRY gene is the code for this biological part. See, even though gene did not account regularly (XX male with SRY Gene) , the biological factor (the protein) is still present. Thus, if the protein is present, the male thing will happen, of course unless the receptor is defective, which is also biological if you think about it).
I just wanted to add that out there in case it seemed no gene = a choice. Biology is still a factor.
Also, I just wanted to point out, that our culture/environment if anything seems to dissuade being gay. :c With so many closeted teens afraid and upset even of coming out, I just really think it is innate. While of course, environmental factors do come into play for all aspects of human life, I strongly believe homosexuality is mostly, if not all, biological.
Genetics do not always give rise to a certain biology, there is also epigenetics "literally above the gene" and other physiological factors. There may even be a combination of genes acting together. Or, like I mentioned earlier, the gene of another being involved (mother's genes in pregnancy) and not necessarily the gene of the person, and various other theories that are just now coming to light. Just because it isn't genetic, does not mean its not biological.... That is because sometimes special genes may even mess up and not necessarily provide the right result (like chulo mentioned with the SRY gene being missing from the sex gene, which means that SRY protein will not form. The SRY protein is the biology of it, the SRY gene is the code for this biological part. See, even though gene did not account regularly (XX male with SRY Gene) , the biological factor (the protein) is still present. Thus, if the protein is present, the male thing will happen, of course unless the receptor is defective, which is also biological if you think about it).
I just wanted to add that out there in case it seemed no gene = a choice. Biology is still a factor.
Also, I just wanted to point out, that our culture/environment if anything seems to dissuade being gay. :c With so many closeted teens afraid and upset even of coming out, I just really think it is innate. While of course, environmental factors do come into play for all aspects of human life, I strongly believe homosexuality is mostly, if not all, biological.
Last edited:
Okay, I finally got to read this whole thread over, lol.
I don't think @AKM hates gay people either. But I do admit that likening being gay to a genetic disorder/illness/'issue' does seem quite offensive and I could understand why others would speak up to that. I don't know if that was your intention @AKM, perhaps that could be cleared up?
I am Roman Catholic. I actually went to Adult Catholic School for two years. One of the things that shocked me was how much priests mentioned that being gay was a disease. The reason I joined that church? I read that it was gay-friendly and it even had a support group. One day I decided to read in the newsletter what was going on for the group. That session for the day was to discuss how to struggle with those sins and overcome being gay. I was shocked. I can't tell you how disspointed I was and how bad I felt. Along with other issues, I left the Catholic Church and became an Atheist. Later, I rejoined again after talking to many Catholic people who believed in gay rights (in the more liberal catholic side of things) and the awesome community. Of course, the priest/church did not believe, but the people did. Sometimes the church does not = the people. So I became catholic again, but a very unorthodox one who doesn't really believe in church hierarchy.
I think the problem stems is that, and it's sad to say, in many churches, this may be the most support gays get (it sickens me to say that gays could be shunned from a lot of other churches). But in a way it's harmful, because it's like these churches act like their helping them and being nice and accepting them, and although that is nice, it's still ultimately very harmful. It still implies what they are doing is wrong and "bad" and that there is something wrong with them and not society because they are supposedly "helping" them. The issue is not that Christians are hating gays, but rather, that many of them don't accept gays for who they are without making it sound like they are tolerating something bad by being nice. And that is very difficult, especially for a gay child or teen growing up who may even come to resent themselves for their orientation, when they shouldn't. :c They are fine the way they are.
The mental illness thing was only an analogy. I could have used various other things that are genetic. I could have compared it to alopecia. There's nothing to technically prevent someone with it from living a fulfilling life. Being hairless does cause people to be uncomfortable to different degrees. To love someone who has it doesn't deny that there was a genetic issue, and doesn't make the genetic issue "right or wrong." It's still acknowledged as a genetic defect. It doesn't make them a better or worse person for having alopecia. Now if someone with alopecia said that anyone who offered them a wig was discriminating against them, would that be rational? There are treatments available to help with it...is it wrong to seek treatment for something that isn't harmful? People will always see the differences in other people. The individual challenge is to love them anyway. There are many genetic issues that people can have. None of us are perfect genetically or even as kind human beings. It doesn't make the individual any less a person, or any less worthy of being showed love and kindness. To go so far as to consider a genetic issue to be "normal" bothers me. To accept it is one thing, to flaunt it is another. It doesn't make one person any better or worse than another. If I were born with 6 fingers, or no legs, or blind or any other issue, I'd want to be accepted, but wouldn't think that it was "normal." It would mean that for some reason God saw it fit to create me that way and I have been given this challenge to live through. Homosexuality is unique in that the genetics affect interpersonal relationships. Physical issues are individual and can be accepted without requiring anyone to interact with another in fulfillment. Mental issues are closer in that respect. An angry schizophrenic can cause harm to others. Do I think gay people cause harm to others any more than anyone else? Not really. I think the whole thing is a language issue as far as everyone misunderstanding my posts. Something outside of the expected result is considered a defect. It may ultimately be better than the original, but at first that is what it is. I've bought t-shirts that were "defective" because the sleeves were too long...to me that was perfect because I don't like very short sleeves. It isn't "right" but it still works just fine. I can't think of a word that doesn't have negative connotations, though I don't intend the negativity. To go back to the alopecia analogy, many Christian women agree with the Bible that her hair is her crowning glory. Would Christians then curse the girl with alopecia because she has no "crown?" I'd be shocked if they did. I acknowledge that the church organization often has stances that their members don't support, but it's difficult for those members to defend the personal attacks because the response is always "you're just saying that...I know you go to such and such a church and they have people out there picketing (or whatever) so you must agree with them." By that logic every American loves drinking budweiser beer while smoking marlboro cigarettes, while barbecuing pork ribs in a wife beater and shorts as the wife suns in her bikini and the kids run all over the place or is a millionaire that doesn't care about others. They are the Americans that end up in the news the most often, so that must be how we all are, right? Or I live in UT so I must be Mormon because they founded the state. I used to get literature from PETA so I must want to throw paint on people's fur coats right? (They have good recipe ideas...I think many of their tactics are too much.) I worked in animal welfare so I must want to berate anyone I meet who has declawed their cat, debarked their dog, pinned their birds wings, etc...right? Being part of a system doesn't mean you believe everything in that system. We are all individuals and there will always be differences. Sometimes they are bigger and sometimes they are smaller, but they are always there.
It sounds like you are still implying that gay people are deficient or defective in some way.
To me, it sounds like you speak out of both sides of your mouth, stating that it is a defect, likening it to a disease, while saying that you should still accept them.
That doesn't sound like true acceptance.
The thing with diseases, is that they require treatment.. Alopecia is a response to other diseases, such as hypothyroidism or diabetes, anxiety disorder, etc. etc.
The thing that is bothersome, is that you imply that gays have a disease, and a disease requires treatment.
Last edited:
The article in question states that it is genetic. Therefore it is not something that an individual chooses. It is also not something that is ingrained in everyone. There are certain things that are considered "normal" or "right." To have two eyes, a nose and a mouth in certain positions. To have two arms, two legs, ending with hands and feet that have 5 fingers and toes each. To reproduce. If it were "normal" then wouldn't it make sense for their reproductive organs to reflect that they wouldn't be producing children? Two men or two women, while deriving pleasure from intimate contact, will never on their own make a child. Therefore why would a gay man still have viable sperm or a gay woman viable eggs? It just doesn't match, and yes, that confuses me. As for whether it's a disease or not, I'm pretty sure I never said that being gay was a disease. A defect is not the same as a disease. Even if it were, a disease never "requires" treatment. It only requires treatment (of some kind) if there is a desire to remove the disease or alleviate the symptoms of a disease.
Whether someone has a disease, defect, or different way of thinking doesn't change my acceptance of them. They are (WE are) all God's children. I am not a perfect human being. I have a harder time accepting someone who has done harm to me than someone who hasn't. It doesn't matter if you're gay or anything else. It doesn't have to make sense to me. It never can because they aren't choices, feelings, or urges that I have, or have had to any great degree. (I also know that when I did have a bit of confusion it was based on insecurity and acceptance of someone more than an actual desire to be with another female.)
Whether someone has a disease, defect, or different way of thinking doesn't change my acceptance of them. They are (WE are) all God's children. I am not a perfect human being. I have a harder time accepting someone who has done harm to me than someone who hasn't. It doesn't matter if you're gay or anything else. It doesn't have to make sense to me. It never can because they aren't choices, feelings, or urges that I have, or have had to any great degree. (I also know that when I did have a bit of confusion it was based on insecurity and acceptance of someone more than an actual desire to be with another female.)
I guess you may be right; it must be a language thing. I don't think you mean this (correct me if I'm wrong) but similar on to the side of what [MENTION=564]acd[/MENTION] said it sounds like you are meaning that it does require treatment. I guess it's difficult to analogize being gay to other diseases caused by genetics since they are very different in a way, even between other diseases. Especially since most diseases/disorders requires some sort of treatment.
Pertaining especially to alopecia, my own sister has alopecia sporadically and it's very different from being gay... The distress comes from biological loss of hair, more exact, the autoimmune system attacking itself leading to bald spots. The distress from being gay is more due to prejudice from others. Being gay is more like a trait to me I suppose, like being born with blue eyes vs green eyes, although of course it is very different than that. Maybe it would be better to say or relate it to everything that can be biologically predisposed, like skin color, height, etcetera, rather than just illness, which has a connotation of being unwanted.
Yes, I agree!
Ok, no matter what I compare it to someone is going to take offense. I'm short and have dealt with short jokes my whole life. I have frizzy hair...again...teased my whole life. Things like this do not in themselves affect how I interact with people.
I'm saying it's abnormal.
Typically in a way that is undesirable, not always.
1) I wanted to apologize for my previous post. I spoke out in anger due to my own personal issues.
2) I didn't mean to attack your views in the way I did, I'm just a bit sensitive towards the topic.\
I personally don't believe gays should try and change their orientation. I've had many discussions about it over the matter, and have come to this conclusion:
If homosexuality is natural, why has so much hate been spread toward homosexuals?
Simple: Because Satan's sole purpose now that he has fallen is to get souls away from God. How can he do this? By placing in the hearts of heterosexual AND homosexual people that homosexuality is a sin and hated by God. I know many, many gays who aren't Christian solely because they believe God hates them. (Which.. is weird. They believe God exists, but refuses to acknowledge him because they think he hates them? That's just denial. Moving on...)
Why in the Bible does it say in "like" two-three places it is forbidden and you'll go to hell?
Now, we might not agree on these points (99% of the Christians I've talked to disagree with me... hah) but this is my biblically founded belief on it:
For Leviticus: Opponents say this argument has been done to death, I still think it's valid. Leviticus was a holiness code to seperate Israel from the World, and to try and grow God's people as much as possible. This is why there's some rules that now a day's we're like "....what?" Such as burning down houses with mold, killing rebellious teens, death for masturbating, death for gays, death while on period etc. Its because God wanted to maximize the potential of each possible Birth. All of these things declared illegal, if you think about it, effect the the possibility of people dying. Mold in a house - air borne illnesss = death. Rebellious teen? - Occupy Temple = death etc. etc. etc.
Also, Jesus came and said in the New Testament that the old rules were gone, and his were the ones that remain.... I say that hesitantly because I can't recall the verse off the top of my head. Also Jesus didn't speak out against Homosexuality, and there's the story of the Centurion and the Eunuch, both proposed to be gay, and who Jesus made no mention of damnation. Now, I would like to note, that in both those cases the men were in need, and Jesus NEVER judged anyone who was in need, he only helped. So that "case" isn't as strong as some might put it.
In Romans, Paul (I believe) said that Homosexuals shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This is perhaps the only line in the New Testament that truly goes out against Homosexuals. Yet there are actually many Christian scholars (not some 1% of Pro gay ones kinda thing) who beleive it was mistranslated from the one Arsenokoi?? Something like that. which actually was a derogatory term for a male prostitute. In fact, in the Bible, Homosexuality is one of the "sins" (quotation marks only because of the differing views in this topic) is one of the least mentioned sins in the entire Bible. But yet has been set up as one of the most vile sins ever committed, which leads to my next point:
If Homosexuality is natural, and God's gift to all mankind is life... How is that reconciled?
Honestly, I don't have an answer to that. However, the answer is kind of already there, though unfortunately so many feminists use it (no offence to any...) I grow tired of it. There are many women born barren, or men born infertile or whatever. Does that mean they should have sex?
------------------
[MENTION=5145]AKM[/MENTION], I feel very bad about how I acted towards you in the earlier post. This is partly because I'm a huge advocate for people being allowed to say what they want to, and in the heat of the moment I lost sight of that.
When I was a young child (Circa. 6-12 years old), I was very "happy" for my future ahead. I was a very devout CHristian, or at least as devout as a Child could be. I was very conscious of God, and my place in his world. I looked towards the future with hope and joy, because I couldn't wait to have my own family, and teach my Children the joys of Jesus.
However, around age 13 or so I started realizing that what other boys meant by "liking girls" was completely different from what I meant. And I soon realized I liked boys instead, but I couldn't put a name to it, because in my house even speaking of homosexuality, etc. was absolutely forbidden, so I didn't even know what I was. I just felt broken. I didn't want to tell my mom and dad about it, because they always talked about how I'd be the perfect husband, and make my wife so happy. etc. I felt ashamed, because I didn't want to ruin their "vision." Later on, as I migrated from Homeschool to public school, I became well aware of the words faggot, cocksucker and the like. But I still didn't know "what" they meant. It was only until one day I was watching the 700 Club, a Christian News Channel my dad is a Senior Level Reporter for... When Pat Robertson talked about the homosexual threat and how the homosexual agenda was planning on ripping our country apart. I was horrified, shocked! Who were these homosexuals, and why would they do such a thing???? And that's when they showed a clip of a gay pride parade and Pat with his ol stuttering "and to say, that this, that this, that this thing is celebrated is such a sign of how far our country has fallen, to say that a man loving a man is ok is just wrong."
That's when it hit me. I was a homosexual. It all made sense now, what they meant when they called me faggot etc. And all I could think of was for the 2 years we weren't allowed to drink pepsi, or watch Disney. Why? Because they supported homosexuals. I thought my parents must hate me, my country now hates me, and my own God hates me? Why ? What did I do? I was not abused as a child. I had very loving parents who were both home a lot of the time. I was home schooled by my mom, and my dad though he went on trips often, was home usually when he wasn't on trips (which was most days.). SO it wasn't lack of a father figure. I was never molested or raped. So it wasn't that.... What was it? 50,000,000 screaming Christians couldn't be wrong! I had to be secretly wanting to be gay, but why? I would never purposefully forsake my chance to be in Heaven... I loved God. I wanted a family.
I grew very depressed for a long, long time. Until one day I came across a -Christian- website. And on it was an article about why homosexuality may not be a sin. It went into all this detail. And afterwards I felt very content. And I started to realize something. Satan cannot love, he can only hate, only bring sadness, etc. God can only love, he cannot hate. Any sadness thus is not from God, but from Satan, or from sin, which is from Satan.
And what I realized now, is that all of that shame I felt, self hate, disgust - none of it came from God. None of it. It was all from the world around me, my peers, my "friends", my school, my -Church-.
So scrapping all other arguments in my post, this is the one I cling to the most. I've only ever felt "true" acceptance when I turn to God. I brought this up with my mom, after I ran away from home fearing death. And she said it was because Jesus loved me, but still hated my sin and I'd still go to hell anyways. This brings up my theological fissures in the common argument I'm not giong into, only because this post is long enough. But a sample of it is this: If you're first a Christian, then a homosexual... How does that take you out o the Book of life? Even if homosexuality is a sin... If you still truly love the Lord, you're in a committed gay relationship, you preach the Gospel and save many lost souls, how could you still go to hell?
Its implying that the sin of homosexuality, the sin mentioned less than 10 times total in the entire Bible, is stronger than Jesus Christ, and even Jesus dying that night on Golgatha, and coming back to life after dumping our sins in hell.. Even Jesus couldn't over come that sin? We're still destined to be apart from God? *Rhetorical btw*
It doesn't make sense.
But even so, I've pledged to live the life God wants me to, I told God to have his way with me. If I meet a girl one day, and I fall in love iwth her, and I know God has brought her to me, and I to her. Than I will love her without question. But if I meet a man one day, and I fall in love with him, and I know God has broought him to me, and I to him, than I will love him without question. That way I'm not deciding whether or not I am going to live a sinful life. I am giong to live the life God wants me to live, which will de-facto be a life without sin. Also I am still against premarital sex, lust, and all the crap a lot of young gay men get into. Those are still sins, even if Homosexuality "might not be."
All the 'shame' and 'wanting to be straight' feelings I've ever felt have come from the world around me, the sinful human race. This is why I reacted so strongly to your post about you saying gay peopel coming to you wanting to chagne.
All I've ever felt from God is the Saviour who died for me, who knew me before I was in my mother's Womb, whos life was in his head when hedied for me. Who loves for all that I am, because I am made like him. All I feel is love from God, and all I feel is hate from the world.
-----One LAST caveat----- The way I feel when I commit a sin, and the way I *felt* for being gay are two entirely different feelings. When I sinned I felt like I had let God down, and God was dissapointed in me. But when I was gay I felt like my family hated me. My friends were disgusted. My Church abandoned me.
Keep in mind I've not kept up with this topic after this post, so you guys might have moved a long but... anyways.
Oh yes, I understood it as such, but thank you for the clarification.
The reason I made that other statement is that homosexuality is so common now, I wanted to point out it is not as rare as people may think.
[MENTION=3156]Saru Inc[/MENTION] - Thank you for sharing where you are coming from. [MENTION=3876]mochi[/MENTION] - I know it's not rare [MENTION=933]Seraphim[/MENTION] - thank you for explaining "abnormal" better than I was able to convey. I also agree that it would come from a variety of factors.
I do agree that many Christians are hypocrites in the sense that they consider one sexual act acceptable yet fiercely condemn another.
I do agree that many Christians are hypocrites in the sense that they consider one sexual act acceptable yet fiercely condemn another.