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, "...it'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.
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)