Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Correlation by itself might be intriguing and worth studying further, but without a clear causal connection it doesn't mean much.

No, it is meaningful, just not necessarily casual. You're committing a category error of supposing that meaningful and causal are synonyms. This just isn’t the case in data analysis.

As Viole pointed out, we can correlate pirate numbers with the temperature of the Earth on a global scale, but that is a far cry from showing that decreasing the number of pirates increases global temperatures.

Well, first of all no, you can't necessarily correlate the two. Simply seeing two independent increases is not at all correlating.

Secondly, once again you're erring in supposing that a correlation is only valid if it were actually established as a cause. That's not the case. If you actually succeeded in establishing a correlation between the temperature of the Earth and pirate numbers, that would be huge, and while it would not necessarily mean that decreasing the number of pirates would decrease temperatures, it certainly might suggest that decreasing temperatures might decrease pirates.

Well, when you can show how acceptance of homosexuality will cause a nation to neglect its infrastructure, its citizen's basic needs, and poorly manage its military power and sphere of influence, you might have something there.

Once again, you're making the mistake of supposing that only causes are important. If a rise in homosexuality was even symptomatic of such things, wouldn't you agree that such a correlation would be at least interesting and worthy of note and investigation?

But there are other cases, like the Greeks, where homosexuality was rampant and they did just fine for years.

No one's saying that it goes from zero to sixty and then flush, overnight.

The point is that if you can see a correlation between a rise in homosexuality and the decline of an empire, that has the potential to be a telling relationship.

Without a clear connection the most prudent thing is to view it as a coincidence, or perhaps tentatively indulge a possible connection.

Actually D-9, correlations are establishing relationships between variables. That's what it is, and that's how it's used.

Even claiming that (acceptance of) homosexuality is a consequence of a nation's decline requires a causative connection lest that too can be written of as coincidence.

Sorry D-9 but your point just isn't actually valid. This really just isn't correct.

[Don Fanucci]

They are not born with it. That is urban legend and junk science. Many homosexuals have been delivered through coming to Christ and will testify that is a spiritual bondage, not something that is natural or something they were born with.

In a nutshell, why Christians continually generate a special and in many cases, deserved, antoginism. I do not support anything about the homosexual lifestyle, adoption, marriage, teaching it in schools, or any form of imagined "gay rights". Having said that, I also do not support hunting them down and "reprogramming" them. While the concrete evidence is not there, that homosexuality is genetic, it cannot be ruled out. This fact puts Christians in a box because if homosexuality cannot be portrayed as just another life style choice then why would God make them? Importantly, there is so much we don't know about behavior that to say that this or that behavior is a choice is both arrogant and stupid. There are many factors outside of the extremes of genes, or choice. For one, epigenetics is a new field that is just now coming into its own. You also cannot discount the effect of hormonal "wiring or rewriring". I think with regard to sexuality, there is plenty, perhaps the majority, of which are simple choices, and generally bad ones at that. But there is also plenty that are not choices but are driven by something else. The best quote I've heard regarding homosexuality being a choice is, "do you think we'd really choose to be this way if indeed we could choose?"

[~candice~]

They are not born with it. That is urban legend and junk science. Many homosexuals have been delivered through coming to Christ and will testify that is a spiritual bondage, not something that is natural or something they were born with.

In a nutshell, why Christians continually generate a special and in many cases, deserved, antoginism. I do not support anything about the homosexual lifestyle, adoption, marriage, teaching it in schools, or any form of imagined "gay rights". Having said that, I also do not support hunting them down and "reprogramming" them. While the concrete evidence is not there, that homosexuality is genetic, it cannot be ruled out. This fact puts Christians in a box because if homosexuality cannot be portrayed as just another life style choice then why would God make them? Importantly, there is so much we don't know about behavior that to say that this or that behavior is a choice is both arrogant and stupid. There are many factors outside of the extremes of genes, or choice. For one, epigenetics is a new field that is just now coming into its own. You also cannot discount the effect of hormonal "wiring or rewriring". I think with regard to sexuality, there is plenty, perhaps the majority, of which are simple choices, and generally bad ones at that. But there is also plenty that are not choices but are driven by something else. The best quote I've heard regarding homosexuality being a choice is, "do you think we'd really choose to be this way if indeed we could choose?"

'Reprogramming' actually has a large success rate. There are peer reviewed papers showing it also does no harm.

I kinda agree about the choice thing, in that I do not believe we choose what t empts us, but we certainly choose what temptations we act upon.

As for genetics, so what? Even if there were a demonstrable genetic cause for homosexual tendencies, would that change His command about it in the slightest?

As for correlation v causation, yes, there needs to be a causative link between two associations... one must preceed the other, it must be reasonable, and all other causes ruled out. Unless of course I have forgotten first year stats . But what I do think we have is homosexuality preceeding the downfall of many nations (look at Judge 19-21, S&G), we have a reasonable explanation (decaying morality causes social fabric decay) but what is difficult is ruling all other things out. Clearly I am not stating that homosexuality is the sole cause of the fall of a society, rather I think it is an indicator of the morality of a society, and it is the decaying morality that is the causative force.

[Don Fanucci]

'Reprogramming' actually has a large success rate. There are peer reviewed papers showing it also does no harm.

What is "large"? And I doubt it. I look at pedophile recidivism, and I think the rule of thumb is those people cannot be cured. Keep in mind behavior is not single gene encoded, there are a massive amount of genes involved, with varying effects. I'm sure there are also peer reviewed papers that show it is destructive--think about it. IF it were purely genetic, or I hate to use the term "natural", you first have to convince them they are abnormal, then you have to convince them to act "normally". Adding baggage, ya think? BTW, that is one of the big problems I have with the whole "celebrate diversity" thing. I think homosexual behavior is abnormal behavior. But then again, if I sit watching TV with my shirt half way up my stomach, and periodically scratch and belch, that would probably be consider abnormal. Also, if behavior modification were so easy, everyone would be skinny.

As for genetics, so what? Even if there were a demonstrable genetic cause for homosexual tendencies, would that change His command about it in the slightest?

Great question that I don't know how to handle. If there is a genetic basis, and homosexuality to them is as normal as heterosexual to us, it is very difficult to at least separate or single them out in terms of somehow having a higher degree of sin.

[~candice~]

'Reprogramming' actually has a large success rate. There are peer reviewed papers showing it also does no harm.

What is "large"? And I doubt it. I look at pedophile recidivism, and I think the rule of thumb is those people cannot be cured. Keep in mind behavior is not single gene encoded, there are a massive amount of genes involved, with varying effects. I'm sure there are also peer reviewed papers that show it is destructive--think about it. IF it were purely genetic, or I hate to use the term "natural", you first have to convince them they are abnormal, then you have to convince them to act "normally". Adding baggage, ya think? BTW, that is one of the big problems I have with the whole "celebrate diversity" thing. I think homosexual behavior is abnormal behavior. But then again, if I sit watching TV with my shirt half way up my stomach, and periodically scratch and belch, that would probably be consider abnormal. Also, if behavior modification were so easy, everyone would be skinny.

Large, is about 50% depending on the program. Do you want the literature? When I am free this arvo I can pull it up for you... it's rather interesting to say the least.

I touch on this on my comment below, but sin does come normal to all of us. And all Christians are required to say ... no... even though the desire for that sinful behaviour comes easily / naturally to me, I must fight against it. It's not something homosexuals are singled out for, it is a war against the flesh that every person with faith must engage in. I think my desires to be lazy and a glutton and critical are sinful, and they come very easily to me . Some people consider them 'normal'. It's a 'normal' I must fight against.

As for genetics, so what? Even if there were a demonstrable genetic cause for homosexual tendencies, would that change His command about it in the slightest?

Great question that I don't know how to handle. If there is a genetic basis, and homosexuality to them is as normal as heterosexual to us, it is very difficult to at least separate or single them out in terms of somehow having a higher degree of sin.

Well I for one am not saying they have a higher degree of sin and never have done so. Sin is sin, it all separates us from God and ranking sin is a futile exercise usually done to make one person appear better than the other, when the reality is that we are all reliant on imputed righteousness from Christ.

I'm just saying, it's still sin... if they found a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism, violence, arson, theft etc, would it make those things right? No, it wouldn't. It would probably soften the hearts of people towards those suffering those temptations, but the reality is that we are ALL BORN with a sin nature... sin comes natural to all of us, genetics or not. Yes I think some people are born with the desire for same sex proclivities... and I do sympathise with them to some extent because they are fighting against their own nature so fiercely, but I don't see any wriggle room to escape the fact that it is sin.

[~candice~]

I touch on this on my comment below, but sin does come normal to all of us. And all Christians are required to say ... no... even though the desire for that sinful behaviour comes easily / naturally to me, I must fight against it. It's not something homosexuals are singled out for, it is a war against the flesh that every person with faith must engage in. I think my desires to be lazy and a glutton and critical are sinful, and they come very easily to me . Some people consider them 'normal'. It's a 'normal' I must fight against.

For me homsexuality is normal and has a biological origin. When I say normal, I mean it is normal that a small percentage of the population is homosexual. Since the percentage is not threatening for us as a species, I do not see any evolutionary reason to deselect it. It could even be that a certain percentage of homosexuality provides evolutionary advantages we do not know about, who knows? After all, we see the same in the natural world and with other species.

To say that it is a choice is, in my opinion, untenable. I, for instance, feel no attraction whatsoever for members of my gender. In my case, calling homosexuality a temptation to keep under control, is like telling me that eating fish (I hate fish) is a temptation to keep under control, or that it is a choice if I do not eat it. A choice requires two valid alternatives. For me there is only one choice, but for somebody else there might be also one choice, different from mine. And for some, there are two choices. If one feels no attraction whatsoever for members of the other sex, then he/she has no choice, either.

We can also observe homosexual tendency already during puberty or even before, which seems to indicate a biological origin of it.

Ciao

- viole

I do not doubt that we can genuinely observe homosexual tendency before puberty. Actually, I won't be shaken at all if a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality is found, it doesn't damage my position at all.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

They are not born with it. That is urban legend and junk science. Many homosexuals have been delivered through coming to Christ and will testify that is a spiritual bondage, not something that is natural or something they were born with.

In a nutshell, why Christians continually generate a special and in many cases, deserved, antoginism. I do not support anything about the homosexual lifestyle, adoption, marriage, teaching it in schools, or any form of imagined "gay rights". Having said that, I also do not support hunting them down and "reprogramming" them. While the concrete evidence is not there, that homosexuality is genetic, it cannot be ruled out. This fact puts Christians in a box because if homosexuality cannot be portrayed as just another life style choice then why would God make them? Importantly, there is so much we don't know about behavior that to say that this or that behavior is a choice is both arrogant and stupid. There are many factors outside of the extremes of genes, or choice. For one, epigenetics is a new field that is just now coming into its own. You also cannot discount the effect of hormonal "wiring or rewriring". I think with regard to sexuality, there is plenty, perhaps the majority, of which are simple choices, and generally bad ones at that. But there is also plenty that are not choices but are driven by something else. The best quote I've heard regarding homosexuality being a choice is, "do you think we'd really choose to be this way if indeed we could choose?"

'Reprogramming' actually has a large success rate. There are peer reviewed papers showing it also does no harm.

I kinda agree about the choice thing, in that I do not believe we choose what t empts us, but we certainly choose what temptations we act upon.

As for genetics, so what? Even if there were a demonstrable genetic cause for homosexual tendencies, would that change His command about it in the slightest?

Well said Candice.

What if I'm genetically predisposed to alcoholism? Or what if we could prove that there was a genetic predisposition to bestiality or cannibalism?

We simple aren't victims of our desires, preferences, choices and actions but masters of said things.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

'Reprogramming' actually has a large success rate. There are peer reviewed papers showing it also does no harm.

What is "large"? And I doubt it. I look at pedophile recidivism, and I think the rule of thumb is those people cannot be cured. Keep in mind behavior is not single gene encoded, there are a massive amount of genes involved, with varying effects. I'm sure there are also peer reviewed papers that show it is destructive--think about it. IF it were purely genetic, or I hate to use the term "natural", you first have to convince them they are abnormal, then you have to convince them to act "normally". Adding baggage, ya think? BTW, that is one of the big problems I have with the whole "celebrate diversity" thing. I think homosexual behavior is abnormal behavior. But then again, if I sit watching TV with my shirt half way up my stomach, and periodically scratch and belch, that would probably be consider abnormal. Also, if behavior modification were so easy, everyone would be skinny.

Large, is about 50% depending on the program. Do you want the literature? When I am free this arvo I can pull it up for you... it's rather interesting to say the least.

I touch on this on my comment below, but sin does come normal to all of us. And all Christians are required to say ... no... even though the desire for that sinful behaviour comes easily / naturally to me, I must fight against it. It's not something homosexuals are singled out for, it is a war against the flesh that every person with faith must engage in. I think my desires to be lazy and a glutton and critical are sinful, and they come very easily to me . Some people consider them 'normal'. It's a 'normal' I must fight against.

See, I have to disagree here just a little.

The problem with homosexuality above and beyond other sins is the committment one makes to others which is a barrier to escaping the sinful lifestyle.

From expereince I can attest that my struggles with different sins were easily put to rest. If I indulged in the pleasures of life for a season, when the big conviction can I recognized my mistakes, repented and went a different way. My struggles with temptation then were relagated to internal struggles which made them pretty managable and required only recognition that my life is not my own since I was bought at a price and was happy to be bought since I knew that the road I was traveling was not one I wanted to follow.

By contrast, if a homosexual is in a committed relationship, how much more difficult will it be for them to deal not only with their internal temptation, but in addition to forsake the one whom they've given themselves to previously. Surely that must put a damper on the extent to which they're willing to entertain the possibilty that Christianity is the truth.

Now, I don't know what Don's talking about, regarding hunting people down. Who believes in hunting anyone down?

I respect someone's right to live according to their conscious and request only that they respect my right to respectfully disagree with their choices. I love homosexuals like I love all people and very much want to introduce them to their Father who loves them and can fulfill them. That's no more hunting anyone down than any other evangelism.

I don't think it's us who're viewing them as some sort of special category, but those who think they should be immune from evangelism or encouragement towards repentance and delivery.

Well I for one am not saying they have a higher degree of sin and never have done so. Sin is sin, it all separates us from God and ranking sin is a futile exercise usually done to make one person appear better than the other, when the reality is that we are all reliant on imputed righteousness from Christ.

I'm just saying, it's still sin... if they found a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism, violence, arson, theft etc, would it make those things right? No, it wouldn't. It would probably soften the hearts of people towards those suffering those temptations, but the reality is that we are ALL BORN with a sin nature... sin comes natural to all of us, genetics or not. Yes I think some people are born with the desire for same sex proclivities... and I do sympathise with them to some extent because they are fighting against their own nature so fiercely, but I don't see any wriggle room to escape the fact that it is sin.

Oops, sorry for repeating your point Candice - I started writing before I finished reading.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I touch on this on my comment below, but sin does come normal to all of us. And all Christians are required to say ... no... even though the desire for that sinful behaviour comes easily / naturally to me, I must fight against it. It's not something homosexuals are singled out for, it is a war against the flesh that every person with faith must engage in. I think my desires to be lazy and a glutton and critical are sinful, and they come very easily to me . Some people consider them 'normal'. It's a 'normal' I must fight against.

For me homsexuality is normal and has a biological origin. When I say normal, I mean it is normal that a small percentage of the population is homosexual. Since the percentage is not threatening for us as a species, I do not see any evolutionary reason to deselect it. It could even be that a certain percentage of homosexuality provides evolutionary advantages we do not know about, who knows? After all, we see the same in the natural world and with other species.

To say that it is a choice is, in my opinion, untenable. I, for instance, feel no attraction whatsoever for members of my gender. In my case, calling homosexuality a temptation to keep under control, is like telling me that eating fish (I hate fish) is a temptation to keep under control, or that it is a choice if I do not eat it. A choice requires two valid alternatives. For me there is only one choice, but for somebody else there might be also one choice, different from mine. And for some, there are two choices. If one feels no attraction whatsoever for members of the other sex, then he/she has no choice, either.

We can also observe homosexual tendency already during puberty or even before, which seems to indicate a biological origin of it.

Ciao

- viole

viole, you're presupposing that there is no objective moral standard which affects this issue.

If there is an objective moral standard by which to measure these preferences and actions then it is a choice because one set of preferences and actions deviate from the objective good.

You're presupposing your point to validate your point.

And seeing the homosexual tendency during or before puberty doesn't suggest anything other than that's when it's visible. You're simply affirming the consequent.

[~candice~]

OES, are we playing the noun v's verb semantic game? I'm talking about the homosexual noun, not verb. I can see why you think the homosexual (verb) is much worse of a sin, but how is it worse than, say, filling your house with pornography? I hate the ranking of sins.