Re: Is there a gay gene?

From: JW Burgeson (
Date: Mon May 13 2002 - 17:10:45 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "RE: Gen 1"

    >>If we are to accept gayness on the basis of its supposed
    genetic roots, then we have no basis for condemning these other behaviors
    that also have genetic roots.>>

    I agree, of course; that is, I do not think we should accept gayness because
    it is genetic. I do not believe I ever argued that we ought to accept
    homosexual behavior beccause it was either genetically or environmentally
    determined. I did argue that since it is NOT a "chosen" orientation, and
    that seems to be fairly well established now with he probably exception of
    the Exodus people, that arguments for "rehab" and "you can refrain from the
    behavior" are only valid if one can show that the activity , itself, is
    sinful in God's eyes. And to do this one needs to argue from the scriptures.

    My web site, page 2, section 10, contains a plethora of these arguments, on
    both sides, and references to many more. All sources cited are, I believe,

    I bagan a study last week on the support the Bible gives to the pro-slavery
    position held by many not only before, but during and, indeed, after the
    Civil War. I'm only a short way into it -- this much seems clear -- the
    Bible supports slavery a lot more emphatically with more citations,
    statements of approval, and examples than it does a blanket condemnation of
    all homosexual behavior.

    To think slavery is prescribed by God, however, is, IMHO, a lot worse than
    thinking all homosexual behavior is proscribed by God. So how do we handle
    such problems? I suggest that many of us, including yours truly until
    recently, simply put on blinders to large part of scriptural text. I don't
    want to do this anymore.


    Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 13 2002 - 20:12:49 EDT