I just posted a long comment on BlogCatalog in 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.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)