I just posted a longin response to this article:
Such findings would further the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice
guardian.co.uk, Monday December 1 2008 18.14 GMT
Here's my comment.
Genetics at conception isn't the end-all-be-all. It's a snapshot that the spirit can still overcome. The spirit is over all matter. Humanity (part of it) is retarding it for a multitude of reasons.
Even if there is a homosexual gene(s), it doesn't mean that it's a good lifestyle. Also, no one has to harm anyone for sexual release. There is no such thing as a homosexual who must have sex. Sex is a choice regardless of genetics. Furthermore, homosexuality is harmful. It's better not to engage in it.
People can stop being greedy. They can stop being violent. They can give up pornography. They stop using tobacco. The list goes on.
Do we say keep drinking a liter of vodka a day, because one is predisposed to alcoholism? I don't say it. I think it's monstrous to say that.
The analogy may not seem apt until one starts talking about the predilection (genetic?) of most homosexuals to also engage in promiscuous and STD-spreading behavior even though they technically know better.
How many cigarettes does it take one to smoke a day before smoking cigarettes becomes harmful? Who finds it genetically more difficult to quit smoking than does the average person? The smoker should still quit. The schools shouldn't be teaching that smoking is fine just because some people are more attracted to smoking from birth than are others.
The statistics bearing out what I've said here are out there for anyone who cares to look. I have some of them on my blog. I raise them since the cited article raised this whole issue based upon what it claims is scientific evidence when in fact it draws many conclusions that are preconceived and arbitrary.
It isn't well-reasoned. It doesn't demonstrate sound logic. What it is, is propaganda the author hopes will have its impact upon people (proselytizing) who will not have engaged in sufficient critical thinking.
Different people are genetically more predisposed than are others to every kind of behavior and addiction. There's no way around that. That's the nature of the flesh, which is weak. There's no way around the fact that nurture plays a large part as well.
Before anyone is tempted to throw the term homophobic, let me say that my views are not irrational. A phobia is an irrational fear. Also, I don't quake in fear around homosexuals. Fear is a word with many connotations. I fear God for instance, but different people will take that to mean different things. Most will not understand the term "fear" in the sense I am using it. It means respect. I do fear for people and society concerning homosexuality, just as I fear greed and violence.
I want to be clear here also about something else. I am adamantly opposed to coercion. No human being should use violence or property destruction or the like either for or against homosexuality.
As for constitutional amendments on the issue, I'm no secularist. I stand outside that system, because it's based upon violent coercion.
You have people on either side of this whole issue clamoring for the power of the secular state to force the other side by threats of violence to do or not to do things. Homosexuals want that state to sanction and condone their behavior. They want that violently enforced. If the state says no one may discriminate here or there on account of homosexuality, most homosexuals want anyone discriminating to be stopped by whatever means necessary. How far do we get in the movement to a more perfect union with that mentality? I say we don't. The perfect union is harmless and unselfish.
I know this was an unusually long comment for BlogCatalog. How else though could I really even begin to cover it? Thank you, and may God bless all.