« All Sufficient Scripture | Main | A Turning Point »

Is Homosexuality Genetic?

March 19, 2004

Many homosexuals point to science to support their case. They believe that science proves homosexuality to be genetic. In fact I have been having this very discussion with an individual onCitizen of the State. He says, "Science is showing us more and more evidence everyday that gay people are born gay" -

I honestly believe that saying science supports the genetic theory is just a distorted opinion fabricated by the homosexuals who want to justify their behavior. They claim ‘relevance’ in the name of science so much, lets just take a look at what science is proving:

1. Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.
(Author of "My Genes Made Me Do It")

2.Homosexual behaviors are fraught with serious mental health and physical consequences--all of which are well documented in scientific literature. One doesn't have to consider homosexuality to be sinful to understand that such behaviors places its participants at risk for mental/physical illnesses - Dr. A. Dean Byrd

3.In 1999, the Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported that, "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices." - Dr. A. Dean Byrd

4.In fact, even gay-activist researchers themselves, who have been desperately seeking a genetic element to homosexuality, have come up empty. Several of these researchers have openly admitted their failure. - Dr. A. Dean Byrd

5. Dr. Dean Hamer (who is a gay-activist) said, "There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. ... I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."

6. Researcher Dean Hamer, attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome. After this study he said, “ The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants."

7. Dr. LeVay (who is also a gay-activist) said, "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."

8. Homosexual philosopher Camille Paglia is quite blunt in her assessment of the "born gay" theory: "No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous ... homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait. ..."

9. The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature? “No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

10. Here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994: “Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."

11. Scientific terms are all too often mis-understood and used wrongly. The problem is the media takes a few short sentences from a study and makes a case out of something that never was the case in the first place. “There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows: 1. Heritable does not mean inherited. 2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited. Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment. Science has never, ever proved that homosexuality is an Inherited trait, instead a gay activist scientist only claimed that homosexuality may be a heritable gene. The media and homosexuals grab that and run with it saying that homosexuality has been proven as a inherited gene when that is completely untrue, even by scientific findings.

12. Dr. Hamer--himself a gay man--adds that science remains "just as clueless" as ever about the environmental influences on homosexuality. Dr. Hamer's statement is consistent with a position taken by most gay advocates, who flatly deny the existence of evidence that points to certain family and social influences on homosexuality.

13. Published in the Globe: “The gene still has not been found, and interest in--and enthusiasm for--the 'gay gene' research has waned among activists and scientists alike.”

14. When "gay gene" researcher Dr. Dean Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he replied: "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."

15. William Byne, a psychiatrist with a doctorate in biology, and Bruce Parsons (1993) carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality. They found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation.

16. “Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality." --R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., Journal of Neuropsychiatry, vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993.

17. "Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration"; it has merely "asserted away the considerable evidence" for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are "convincing only to those with a need to believe." --S. Goldberg (1994) When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

18. “There is a genetic component to homosexuality, but 'component' is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. 'Linkage' and 'association' do not mean 'causation.' There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic--and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public." --Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, p.8.

19. The national organization P-FLAG ("Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays") offers a booklet prepared with the assistance of Dr. Clinton Anderson of the American Psychological Association. Entitled, "Why Ask Why? Addressing the Research on Homosexuality and Biology," the pamphlet says: "To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date...sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors."

If you want to point to science as evidence that you were ‘born gay’ you are going to have a very difficult time in doing so. Because science says something completely different than what homosexuals have claimed it to say. So does the Bible. In view of the overwhelming wealth of REAL SCIENTIFIC information by both gay and straight scientists and doctors, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that suggests the idea that homosexuals are born that way.

Here are some statistics on homosexuality:

Extreme promiscuity is found in homosexual circles, even in spite of the fatal consequences of AIDS, for both men and women: The average gay man has over 50 lifetime partners, while as many as 83% reported having over 50 partners in their lifetime. While 83% of heterosexuals are monogamous, only 2% of homosexuals claim to be monogamous. By contrast, average sex partners per year for all adult Americans is 1.16 Even with the rise in heterosexual promiscuity, the average American claims 4 lifetime sexual partners. - Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth,” Hamewith Books: Grand Rapids, MI.

A higher incidence of pedophilia and sexual abuse: Two homosexual researchers found that 73% of male homosexuals had had sex as adults with boys 19 or younger. A Canadian report noted that 91% of non-familial molestations were committed by clear homosexuals. - K. Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report (New York, NY: Summit, 1979), p. 5, p. 275. and W. L. Marshall, "Early Onset and Deviant Sexuality in Child Molesters," Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6:1991, pp. 323-336.

Due to their use of excretory organs for sex and their high level of promiscuity, homosexuals open themselves up to serious illnesses, some of which are unique to gays (e.g. "gay bowel disease," exotic ailments caught via anal sex). According to Jaffe's 1983 study of 170 male homosexuals found a striking array of diseases:

77% had contracted gonorrhea at some point in their lives;

44% had suffered from syphilis;

Nearly 30% had been treated for parasitic diarrhea;

Around 90% had used marijuana; over half had used cocaine; and about half had used LSD.

30% of all 20 year old gay men will be HIV positive or dead of AIDS by the time they are age 30. 22

The infection rate for infectious hepatitis B is 20-50 times greater for homosexual males than for heterosexual males. It is estimated that 1/2 to 3/4 of homosexual men have or have had this disease.

Homosexual men accounted for 13.2% of gonorrhea cases in 1999, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The same study reported a frightening increase in the AIDS among gay men - an increase that statistically resembles the AIDS explosion of the 1980’s. 4.4 percent of gay and bisexual men ages 23-39 are newly infected with HIV each year.

Between 25 and 33% of homosexuals are alcoholic (vs. 7-10% for the general population). 25

Today homosexual males account for 54% of all reported AIDS cases.26

The greatest risk factor for sexual transmission of the disease is receptive anal intercourse, in which the rectum is frequently torn. Even without tears, semen can easily penetrate the rectal wall, enter the blood stream and wreak havoc with the immune system.

Statistics from: 21 cf. Harold W. Jaffe, et. al., "National Case-Control Study of Kaposi's Sarcoma . . . in Homosexual Men . . .," Annals of Internal Medicine, August 1983, vol 99, number 2, pp. 145-151. 22 E.L. Goldman, “Psychological Factors Generate HIV Resurgence in Young Gay Men,” Clinical Psychiatry News, October 1994, p. 5. 23 cf. P. Buchanan and J. Muir, "Gay Times and Diseases, The American Spectator, August 1984, pp. 17-18, and J. Kassler, Gay Men's Health (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1983), p. 38. 24 “Risks and Remedies,” World, p. 93, June 16, 2001. 25 "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay American Men," Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 14, no. 2, 1987, p. 254. 26 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 10(1), June 1998.

There are numerous counseling centers and support groups for homosexuals seeking to become heterosexual. Many are run by former homosexuals who have chosen to provide support and direction to those who know the discontent and emptiness that they once knew. The following organizations are support groups and counseling centers for homosexuals or those who have friends or family that are homosexual. If you are dealing with homosexuality and you need help, please contact one of these organizations for help!

NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals)
16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1340.
Encino CA 91436-1801
Phone: (818)-789-4440
Fax: (805)-373-5084
Website: www.narth.com

Oasis
Riverside Assembly
20924 Hwy. 7
West Hutchinson, MN 55350
Phone: (320)-587-2074 #18
Email: oasisag@usa.net

Eagles’ Wings
P.O. Box 11246
Minneapolis, MN 55411
Phone: (612)-781-4110
Website: www.ewm.org email: info@ewm.org

Outpost
P.O. Box 22429
Robbinsdale, MN 55422-0429
Phone: (763)-592-4700
Website: www.outpost-inc.com email: hope@outpost-inc.com

Simon Ministries
P.O. Box 11041
Minneapolis, MN 55411
Phone: (612)-521-6160

KEYS Ministry
P.O. Box 97
Wykoff, MN 55990
Phone: (507)-352-4110
Website: www.keysministry.com email: keysmin@means.com

Posted by Pressed at March 19, 2004 11:42 PM

| TrackBack

Comments

Posted by: Doug
March 20, 2004 02:38 PM

Another resource for a homosexual that is trying to escape that lifestyle is Exodus.

We need to remember that these people are victized by their sins, just as we all have been, no matter what sins you are I are guilty of. A strong dose of loving the sinner while hating the sin can go a long way with a homosexual person.

They need the of God! (I just had to use that smiley somewhere!)

Posted by: jez
March 28, 2004 12:56 PM

hi,
i just flicked through this post, and the first thing that crosses my mind re the high incidence of mental health problems is that it could be caused by society's attitude towards gays. Because society treats gays so badly, a homosexual has to either hide his sexuality (putting him under a great mental strain which heterosexuals are free from), or comes out, which is a difficult enough act in itself, but is followed by various difficulties from homophobes who attack them. That could easily have something to do with it, don't you think?

As for failing to find a single gene or small group of genes: that is not surprising to me (i'm doing a research degree in computational biology) since genes code for *proteins* not behaviours. So while we can find a small set of genes which control eye colour or hair type, it would be more surprising to find genes which control humour, intelligence or sexuality.

If you're wondering whether homosexuality is "natural", i don't think you need to isolate genes to find out. Just look at the animal kingdom. Plenty of homosexual activity there, male and female, in insects, sea creatures, even primates, our closest relatives (whatever you think about the Descent of Man vs Creationism, you can't deny the strong genetic resemblence). Natural selection works on whole societies, it's not as simple as "only those genes expressed in individuals which reproduce a lot persist". Take bee-hives as an example: one queen, a few drones and several workers -- the workers are ALL INFERTILE, but that society passes the test of natural selection. So maybe having some homosexuals in the community is "advantagous", (from the strictly defined darwinian point of view).

i don't have the time to go into it, but i question some of your statistics. most people lie about the number of sexual partners they've had, and the diseases they've had. if you ask someone at a coctail party if they've ever had syphilis, do you honestly expect them under any circumstances to say "yes, caught it off a lady-boy prostitute in Thailand in 1973"? the reluctance which is obvious in the party situation is retained during surveys like those that must have been carried out to collect your stats. it's also possible to do underhand things by "selecting" what should be random groups.

as for anal sex, that's not unique to homosexuals, and the vagina is also an "excretory organ". as i see it, if you leave the bible out of it (as you seem to have done for this post) the only reasonable objection to homosexuality is aesthetic -- i just don't like the idea of two guys doing it, makes me shudder. I guess that must be what it's like for a homosexual thinking about a guy and a girl doing it.

Posted by: Pressed
March 28, 2004 01:42 PM

I don't think looking at the animal kingdom to support homosexuality as natural for humans is the answer. I agree with Le Renard Subtil on this matter at Citizen of the State

Leaving the Bible out of it I would still be a strong proponent against homosexuality, not because it is gross, but because I still believe it to be unnatural and a perversion. Well it is gross too. It may be true that some of these sources are incorrect, but it could be true that they are true, and in the same respect the homosexual who quotes a thousand sources could have a large quantity of them being wrong as well. Certainly if someone against homosexuality has a reason to lie and fabricate some statistics so does someone on the homosexual side of the fence.

Posted by: jez
March 28, 2004 10:37 PM

the point about looking at the animal kingdom is simply to demonstrate that homosexuality is natural, nothing more. And if you want to continue claiming it is unnatural, then you should really explain how it is that unreasoning animals engage in an unnatural act.

are you against *anything* that is unnatural? I do not follow the "natural == good" argument which is so popular these days. Our lives are immesurably enhanced by technology, medecine and culture, all evidence of civilisation and that which is not natural. Our natural state is a nomadic hunter-gatherer existence, you know? Naturally, we don't have access to anti-biotics and anti-septics, and sanitation and sewage works, or clothes or guns or trucks. Natural ain't all it's cracked up to be!
but homosexuality is something which does happen to be natural, i am convinced.

besides which, it is quite possible for you to disaprove of them, and pray for their conversion within a society which recognises their partnerships. why ban it? (or obstruct legal marriage.) If two guys get married, it doesn't actually affect you, while if you stop the guys getting married, that really upsetst their lives quite a bit. Could you at least tolerate it?
isn't there supposed to be a separation between church and state?

(i'm making the assumption that you're against gay marriage... i could be wrong)

Posted by: John Martin Viejo
April 4, 2004 10:27 PM

"When choosing between two evils I always like to take the one I've never tried before" - Mae West
I'll let you know how this goes, and report back.

Posted by: Pressed
April 4, 2004 11:20 PM

I have a problem believing that homosexual marriage will not affect anyone, because I think it has the potential. For instance, will it lead to ministers being forced to marry a homosexual couple even if they do not agree with this action? If we begin to 'tolerate' this then will it, one day, be illegal to not hire a homosexual for a church staff position based on that person’s sexuality? Will a person who does not agree with homosexuality be forced to accept it as a valid, natural lifestyle even if they do not believe it to be one? Isn’t that what the homosexual movement is asking for, the recognition that it is a valid, natural lifestyle? It looks like it has a lot of potential to become a bigger problem that it is now.

Posted by: jez
April 6, 2004 08:17 AM

well, it is a valid natural lifestyle.
but your church already excludes several of those: eg. members of other faiths and people with no faith. a church is by definition not an inclusive organisation. It's not like the men-only golf clubs we have here in britain, where women are only allowed to play at odd times and may not be allowed in the bar -- there's nothing about golf itself which predicates such action, but all the members of a church must subscribe to a consensus of belief and practice, otherwise it's meaningless. i'm sure that will be protected, and remember people don't want to be where they're not wanted. there are churches where gays are more welcome, and if there aren't, they will appear.

if i were you guys, i'd concentrate on looking after your churches, and hold off on the gay marriages. from the outside, it seems that you are asking gay couples to pay a high price to protect your churches.

Posted by: Cyrano
April 30, 2004 10:34 PM

I love how the intelligent points made by "jez" are completely ignored by a subsequent posting that instead abstains from rational argument in order to argue its case.

It is true that no gene has been discovered for intelligence, but we know a large or portion (not entirely of course, or even most of) intelligence is inherited (if some of it wasn't inherited, humans would not have envolved such exceptional intellgience), therefore because behaviours can still be inherited, and homosexuality is a behaviour, homosexuality can still be inherited. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Posted by: Rev. Donna Owen
November 18, 2004 05:30 PM

Understanding Your Own Sexuality
On the other hand, you may be prey to feelings of shame or guilt, especially if you were told, as a child, that homosexuality is evil or sinful. You may fear retribution from God or expulsion from certain social or religious groups. You may feel worn down by the stress of living in partial hiding.
If you hold yourself responsible for your sexual orientation, it may help you to consider the current scientific view on the development of homosexuality. Research in recent decades has made it increasingly clear that homosexuality is largely innate or "wired". Homosexuality runs in certain family lines more than in others, even when the children are given up for adoption - strong evidence for the importance of genes in homosexual development. There's also speculation that the hormonal environment in utero can influence sexual orientation later in life.
Thus, the concept of homosexuality as a "sexual preference" or "lifestyle choice" is a mistaken one. The great majority of homosexual people experience their sexual orientation as something they discover in themselves, rather than something they choose for themselves. You are no more responsible for your homosexuality than straight people are responsible for their heterosexuality.
http://www.sexualityandu.ca/eng/adults/SGO/

Posted by: 2QT2BSTR8
November 21, 2004 04:32 AM

I'd just like to express my opinion, I'm a 17 yrold Gay male. I'm just guessing that most of you are from the U.S., and if our country stands for "freedom" and the bible says that all men and woemen are created equally, then why is there so much controversy? How can anyone argue with those simple fundamentals that our country is based on. As for the people that cant accept difference from the "normal" orientation, I have advice for you. You need to stop living and thinking in such a one track minded mindset. If you cant accept differences, i suggest you shoot your self, because take a look around you, theres people with DIFFERENT eye color, DIFFERENT hair, DIFFERENT body types! OMG! theyre Different! WHOA! Deal with it! were not all the same. And also, for the people that try and blame homosexuals for being a major contributer to the spread of STD's, why dont we take a look at the alcahol industry, and the cigarette industry. Did you konw that 98% of Lung Cancer, and Emphaciema cases, are caused because of Cigarette's? So it's not just Homosexuals that spread stuff. It's kinda sad when people actually pay to get sick, and then companies make money off of it, now tell me, which sounds sicker, making money off of killing people, or a pleasureful sickness? The point that I'm trying to get accross, is that Homosexuals are not bad people, we're just doing what makes us happy, and no one should have ANY right to tell us what to do, and what not to do. As for gay marriage, if gay people cant get married, straights shouldnt either. I wish you all good luck in developing a more open mind, and putting humanity over the bible. I truly do believe that if we continue to discriminate against differences in us, it could lead to another holocaust...

Posted by: Pressed
November 22, 2004 09:12 PM

You are free to be a homosexual in America. There isn't anyone arguing with that simple fundamental. And in the same respect I am perfectly free to believe that homosexuality is evil, wrong, disgusting, and a sin. Why is it you want your freedom at the expense of mine? Your entire argument is a circular one. You say that if we can't accept differences then we just need to shoot ourselves, but who is the one who is not accepting differences? I am different than you, I have different views of homosexuality than you and you can't accept that. You are the one thinking from an one track mindset. We have different hair, different body types, and different perspectives on homosexuality... why can't you accept that? Why do you have to come on here and contradict yourself by trying to hold me to some standard you can't even live up to?

I never said homosexuals are bad people. Maybe misguided and confused, but I didn't say bad. Do you really think that you should be allowed to do whatever makes you happy? Just because something makes you happy, that does not make it right. People who are addicted to crack are happy when they are shooting up, but it is killing them. It is wrong for them to be addicted to these drugs, and yet it makes them happy, so should we just allow them to do it? For pedophiles, molesting little children makes them happy. Should we simply abolish all law against them so that they can do what makes them happy? I just don't get that.

Now, once again with your circular argument. If you actually believe that people have no right to tell you what to do, then why are you on my website trying to tell me what to do? You are really contradicting yourself. You say that I should have an open mind? Maybe you should take a moment to listen to yourself and see just how close minded you really are.

Posted by: Prion
February 7, 2005 07:17 PM

I noticed in all of your studies cited that only the inconclusivness aspects of them were focused on.

Why is that?

Is there is a straight gene?

Are you going to post disease statistics about blacks relative to whites in the United states and then use that as some kind of evidence as indicative to how wrong it is to be black?

Are you going to say there is something wrong with women as opposed to men because they tend to have higher degree of certain pyschological disorders?

You are trying to find and construct reasons to be against homosexuality, not honestly try to understand it, right or wrong.

Some of what you post is just blatantly biased.

Homosexuals have a higher incidence of certain mental disorders, true, but it's not homosexuality that is causing it, it's how society has treated homosexuals FOR being homosexual.

Seriously think about it. Imagine if you had to constantly worry about rejection, isolation, hide who you are.

Imagine if you were taught from childhood to hate homosexuals only to realize you are one.

Imagine having to worry about physically being hurt if you weren't careful.

Imagine not being able to freelly be with and tell others about the person that you love who make the world such a wonderful place to be in, no, but instead that it's something you should be ashamed of, hated for, rejected for.

I think it's an utter irony that many people would judge gays for not living more normal healthy lives like striaghts when that life is never even afforded to them in the first place because they are gay!

Posted by: Danni Turner
April 4, 2005 01:00 PM

im doing a debate on sexual orientation in sociology class but im on the nurture side. Could you list some statistics please that could be good on the nature side. Even though there is no gay gene? i would appreciate it. Thanks

Posted by: John D
April 6, 2005 05:03 AM

Where is the Evil?

The idea is broader. And you aren't thinking enough to see how it affects real living human beings.

"Is Homosexuality Genetic?" - I think the question can serve a couple of purposes. One could be academic - "This human situation called homosexuality: where does it come from? From the genes or from the society? Maybe both in combination?"

The other purpose could be justifiable action (which breaks down into two main degrees - negative and positive) - Negative: "If it’s genetic, then it would be absurd to condemn it as a sin. But then if it’s not genetic, it’s at least possible that it’s a sin. And indeed if we go off of the Bible alone, homosexual sex is definitely a sin." And the negative options could grow from there. Perhaps you help homosexuals by "converting" them into heterosexuals. Or help by not allowing them heterosexual rights like marriage, sex, child rearing, etc. And then more extreme options can certainly arise (and indeed have).
Alternatively the positive options are also available: "Become friends with them. And do things to help them gain rights and live a peaceful existence." There could be a neutral option as well: "Leave them alone."

Of the points you made many are to illustrate some of the lack of evidence for "homosexual genes". This is surely in the Academic realm. I'll ignore all of it. I'll also ignore the anal-sex higen exaggerations and the lifetime gay partner exaggerations.

The remainder of your points is where the attention should be drawn. You list out many of the Real Perils inside the homosexual community. Now I don't know if this is to illustrate that: "God named homosexuality a sin because it carries with it these negative consequences that would harm his people and therefore we must help them by condemning it." or to illustrate that "These people are rightly getting these negative effects. It is the Just Punishment of God." Either conclusion would be flatly Wrong and Immoral. The Moral action is to remedy the real Perils.

I’ll list some Perils quickly and then show a better solution:

(These Perils are apparent in other areas of the society as well. And where they're not, they can be understood with moral imagination.)

"Suicide is high for homosexuals": Homosexuals are also overwhelmingly rejected by the community and in fact rejected by much of History and Religion. They are told they are evil, told they are child molesters, and are harassed for being gay (especially when growing up). Suicide should be expected for the more battered persons. [Talk closely to a few gay people. You will better understand where they are coming from better.]

"Homosexuals have lots of sexually transmitted diseases, particularly AIDS:" Many homosexuals also do not have any sexually transmitted diseases at all. The gay community consistently has taken a strong stand against HIV/AIDS and all aspects that go with it – including the irresponsible drug behavior (that of needles and hard drugs) that is a large component of AIDS in the US. However AIDS is much larger. It exists all over the world among many different people. HIV/AIDS (like every other virus) grows within the population it’s connected with (and is constantly seeking new populations). Its main US target has been Gays. But lately the fastest growing AIDS infections in the US are among Black people in general. In fact according to the CDC 40% of diagnosed AIDS cases (in the US) are African Americans and infection is increasing much faster with them than the white population. This may under represent the problem too as one third of the US Black population lives in utter poverty - having poor or no healthcare to treat the AIDS (or for that matter their heath in general).
And this pales in comparison to the AIDS that exist in the poorer parts of the world like Africa where literally millions die from it each year.

See CDC: Black and Gay Aids and CDC: Black Poverty and Wikipedia - AIDS

[An estimated 40+ million people worldwide have AIDS. It surely is one of the biggest killers the human race has ever known. It should automatically be taken seriously.]

Correct Point:

It just doesn’t matter if it’s “Genetic” or not. This is a group of real living people that have real problems just like the problems Alabamians, New Yorkers, Christians, Baptists, Australians and every other member of the human race have. They bleed the same red blood everyone else does. If the United States were hit with a Nuclear Bomb they would die with you. Their crime is they happen to love members of the same sex in ways that most of society does not. It doesn’t mean you have to do it too.

As a people we have to have clarity of Mind and look at those problems that actually are Evil or Immoral or harmful to the Human Species. We have to look at the real Perils we’re in and find solutions to fix them. We can do some of it by our self. But our single power is just far too weak to do anything substantial. We have to do things combined together. I believe that is the meaning of being a Christian - Recognizing we are all part of the same Body that must work together to “love” one another by helping each other out with our Hands, Minds, and Hearts towards making the Reality we are all inside what we want it to be.

Posted by: Pressed
April 6, 2005 01:30 PM

I think the only way we can approach a subject like homosexuality with clarity of mind is to understand it from a Biblical perspective. It is not as if Homosexuality is something new, it's been around for years and years. There was homosexuality in Biblical times and the Bible does address the issue. I agree that homosexuals are human, they are people created by God who are caught up in a sinful practice just like everyone else. The way we have to approach it is through helping believers who struggle with homosexuality out of that type of lifestyle. This doesn't have to be a harmful, condeming thing.

This post was written over a year ago and the trouble with blogs is that when you have a post like this and you are discussing things sometimes the way you view certain issues changes. My view of Homosexuality being genetic has changed. I wrote about it in a later post entitled "I'm Born That Way". I am closing out this particular section of comments and moving all discussion of this issue to the new post with my new views on the subject.

Fall 2006

Recently Posted

Avoiding Evil Archives

Search This Site

Rate this blog: