The following is my reply to the person (BlogCatalog user name timethief) who began the threaded discussion on BlogCatalog entitled, "evidence homosexuality linked to genetics."

You may want to read PART 1 first. Let me warn you that if you visit the BlogCatalog discussion and read it, you will be subjected to what is called the f-word.

As a reminder from PART 1, timethief has pointed the BlogCatalog community to the article, "US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics." (McClatchy newspapers. The Guardian. December 1 2008.)

Here is my further reply into which I have added some elaborations offset via bracketing:

Hello timethief (and everyone),

Timethief, haven't you read that there are those claiming religion is hardwired into the brains of the religious? I won't belabor the point. [She had written that "every religious person I [referring to herself] know claims that they did choose their belief system."]

You wrote, "But setting aside the evidence being uncovered by geneticists...." You take it as evidence. Nothing I read in the article you cited caused me to come to the conclusions being forwarded. [The ultimate conclusion (the point of posting the article; the authors agenda) being that society should condone homosexuality]

You also wrote, "'s factual that we are allowed to choose our religion and whom we live with." Correct. [with qualifications]

Further, you wrote, "So if sexual orientation does turn out to be a choice, why should it be treated any differently than religious choice?" It depends upon the religion too doesn't it? A religion of child sacrifice is not going to be "tolerated" by the vast majority of voters in the U.S. or Canada (just yet anyway).

If you are saying that the state shouldn't force homosexuals not to engage in that behavior, I happen to agree with you, as is clear in my comment above [see: PART 1]. Of course, if you are going to be consistent, you're going to have to not be coercive regarding all manner of behavior. When do you start saying that the secular state should step in, why, and what rule do you use that will work in every case?

I don't call for state intervention first. [There are those who cannot bring themselves to total pacifism in every instance. Jesus did not ask for the apostate state to intervene. He did clean the temple. The temple was a place for voluntary prayer. There's a huge difference. Consider it.] I call for a change of heart. I say that the homosexuals are being hard-hearted, which is not the direction humanity should be heading.

Why is homosexuality the cause celeb when few seem upset for the pedophiles who swear up and down that they can't help it and with the backing of the vast majority of mental-healthcare researchers who point to the high rate of recidivism, etc.? If you bring up the children, I bring them up concerning what they are being taught now about homosexuality that harms them. What they are being taught is harmful.

You see, I'm not asking for the state to come crashing down on the homosexuals. By developing the thoughts in their minds concerning stopping harm, I asked the homosexuals to stop. I want them to voluntarily choose to stop harm. Why can't they do that? Am I supposed to condone their behavior, because they may be genetically predisposed to caring less? What's wrong with planting the mental seeds that will grow within their brains to change their behavior? Why is that bad? Why do they scream against it if not to cling to harmful behavior?

We are being asked to believe that everyone is better off if the whole of society caves into this clinging to harmful behavior. However, I'm opposed to war. Are you? I'm opposed to greed. Are you? What's the difference between blood lust, money lust, and sexual lust? The brains of the greedy are different from the brains of the unselfish and sharing. It's a fact. The brains of the predators are different from the brains of the pacifists. We don't say that it's okay to harm people in war or that it's okay to harm them in the economy. Where's the consistency? We're upset about the Iraq War and the plans to go kill more people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but we're okay with sexual harm just because why?

We demand that George W. Bush see the light. Isn't he genetically predisposed to be as he is in conjunction with the nurturing he had or lack thereof?

We are demanding that Wall Streeters, such as Henry Paulson, see the light about the dangers of unbridled capitalism. Aren't they genetically hardwired to be reckless economic risk takers? Many of them are converting to regulators. How soon will they revert back to laissez-faire greed for lack of strong enough signals from the rest of society? What makes homosexuals different?

We're mad about the bailout of the predator speculators on Wall Street because of all the harm they've done that certain people were warning about back in the late 1970s, yours truly included, when the movement to deregulate began to be rolled out. Well, I'm warning about the slide into sexual error now. I was against the Vietnam War and was speaking against the planned invasion of Iraq. I'm trying to be consistent here, that is to say not hypocritical. [I'm not first for coercive regulation of the mundane economy. I'm for the softening of hearts.]

Do you believe the lines of what is deemed harmless won't move beyond the line between homosexuality and pedophilia? If so, why do you believe that? On what do you base that assumption that isn't the same assumption used several decades ago to suggest that homosexuality would never reach the point it has today? My point here is to suggest the fact of the slippery slope.

As for why discrimination [mundane legal discrimination; coercive] is contemplated by so many, you ignored the issue of promiscuity and spreading diseases (a variety of very dangerous diseases). Universal healthcare is being discussed. Treating diseases associated with homosexuality will take away from treating other diseases. Why not think preventatively now though rather than waiting? This is a choice that would not even arise were it not for people who refuse not to engage in clearly harmful behavior.

You wrote, "And if it isn't a choice then why should the religious beliefs of others be used to discriminate against people who are possessed of same sex orientation?"

You will note that I didn't appeal to religion [in the sense timethief meant the term] in making the case that homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle that should be promoted as such [healthy] in the schools and such. I mentioned the spirit and God, but if one were to remove all those references, the comment would still stand on the facts. Homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle to the extent that it has been portrayed by so many. It should be viewed in the light of the facts. The idea of giving children in their impressionable and informative [meant formative] years the idea that homosexuality is nothing to be concerned about is really lax at best.

That's what I care about. I care about the homosexuals who are harming themselves and others (their partners - sometimes and even often, very numerous). I care about the children being misled by omission (leaving out the hard facts).

Do you really not believe that ten, twenty, thirty years from now if things continue down the current path that there won't be people who are young children now who will be asking, "Why didn't anyone tell me, and why did they tell us it was okay"?

Of the homosexuals you know, how many confide in you every ailment or symptom they have experienced or are beginning to experience? Really, it's denial.

God bless everyone, which includes the homosexuals, the troops, and the Wall Street speculators.

Tom Usher

About Tom Usher

Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.


  1. Avatar D. Anderson says:

    Dear sir/ madam,

    i have been reading your views on homosexuality and while you have perhaps some qualifiable points, i am having trouble understanding precisely what you mean when you say that homosexuality is "harmful". in which way is it harmful? spritually, physically, morally? i have never seen harm used in this way in relation to homosexuality. another note, as a scientist, i think it is important to cite that paedophilia has a much closer link to heterosexual behaviour and should therefore be left out of the discussion as to the safety of society in regards to homosexuality. lastly, you compared greed, agression(?) and lust to make the point that homosexuals should be capable of making a choice to abstain from their feelings of lust. while the bible speaks of lust as a sin for everyman it speaks of love as a vitrue. humans, social in nature, must have love and desire, clearly a part of love, is something we know not yet enough about to ascribe it to a social or genetic source. my point is that love, and lust, while connected, are two separate things and to condemn the virtue in the name of the sin is perhaps going a bit far. in the same line of thinking one could also condemn heterosexual desire and thereby also relationships or marriage, but i think everyone can agree that desire is acceptable if it is within love(a man and a woman in particular according to some religions and cultures. this brings me back to the question of harm. if homosexuals love each other where is the "harm"?

    -thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my question.

    • Tom Usher Tom Usher says:

      Hello D. Anderson,

      That's a good question (harm), and I appreciate your approach. In fact, one of the things on my To-Do list is to reduce the length of my post that lists the physical problems associated with homosexuality. ("Homosexuals: What they ignore.") It is a starting place for the materialists (nonspiritualists) for understanding that homosexuality is harmful spiritually, physically, and morally.

      None of those terms is divorceable from the others on this plane. Jesus is spirit that is incarnate when he is here as we are flesh here.

      At this point, it seems that most of what I have written there after simply listing physical problems is too lost on people who are not at all versed in the language of the revelation of Jesus Christ. I have plenty of information on this blog about that language, and I haven't been intending on removing all such language from that post. We shall see. For your purposes, you might become lost in that language as it now stands on that post. That might lead you though to ask more questions that will round out the theology here. That was why I wrote it there in the first place. As I say, we'll see — meaning I will wait on the Holy Spirit to move me accordingly.

      You've stated many things in your comment that are predicated upon your not having already made the connection with harm, so I will wait for you to read more before addressing anything further. Let me know what you think after reading and considering the post listing harm.

      God bless,

      Tom Usher

Comments are closed.