Studies Prove Homosexuality Is Not Genetic

[Jefferson]

Studies Prove Homosexuality Is Not Genetic

This is the show from Tuesday March 10th, 2015

Summary:

Mark Ellis of GodReports.com discusses his popular article, Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic. Eight major studies of identical twins in the U.S., Australia, and Europe all conclude that homosexuals were not born that way. Twin registers are growing from many tens of thousands towards record keeping on hundreds of thousands of siblings. Meanwhile, even studies with pro-homosexual authors show that about 90% of men and 86% of women with a homosexual twin sibling are themselves heterosexual. Regardless, to be a liberal, you have to believe that gender is nurture, that homosexuality is nature, and that lesbianism is a lifestyle choice.

See also:

- Newsweek's Lisa Miller on BEL
- Bob Debates Homosexual Activist Wayne Besen
- Focus on the History (of homosexual 'rights')

 

[Tambora]

I have not yet read the whole article.

But could the same be said of heterosexuals? A choice rather than genetic?

 

[genuineoriginal]

I have not yet read the whole article.

But could the same be said of heterosexuals? A choice rather than genetic?

Heterosexuality comes from a Biological Imperative for reproduction in order to perpetuate the species.

_____
Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. Include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming. Living organisms that do not attempt to follow or do not succeed in satisfying these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive.
______​

Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait that develops in organisms that are not seeking to perpetuate the species.

 

[Tambora]

Heterosexuality comes from a Biological Imperative for reproduction in order to perpetuate the species.

_____
Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. Include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming. Living organisms that do not attempt to follow or do not succeed in satisfying these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive.
______​

Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait that develops in organisms that are not seeking to perpetuate the species.

I get that.

But let me play devil's advocate for a moment in a secular stance.

If we now have the technology to perpetuate the species without two people (male & female) personally connecting in sexual intercourse, ..... then would it be valid to claim heterosexuals are still needed in order to perpetuate the species?

 

[False Prophet]

I get that.

But let me play devil's advocate for a moment in a secular stance.

Keep on trying!

 

[patrick jane]

I get that.

But let me play devil's advocate for a moment in a secular stance.

If we now have the technology to perpetuate the species without two people (male & female) personally connecting in sexual intercourse, ..... then would it be valid to claim heterosexuals are still needed in order to perpetuate the species?

i argued years ago, that if everyone was gay, mankind would be gone in about a hundred years. then test tube babies, cloning etc. bottom line, IMO, it is never genetic. i detect in many cases an early pattern of "not feeling comfortable", not relating to, the opposite sex. self-esteem, confusion, maybe they want to "feel" better, then they do, so maybe it seems ok ? just opinion, obviously different in each case. i just can't stop relating it to circumstances surrounding the lives of folks, either early or later, and i will never see it as "natural" -

 

[Tambora]

i will never see it as "natural" -

Good. Cause it's not.

God created Adam (mankind) in His image.
Afterwards, Eve came forth from Adam.

The image of God was both of them together.

Not male & male, or female & female, but male and female.

 

[patrick jane]

Good. Cause it's not.

God created Adam (mankind) in His image.
Afterwards, Eve came forth from Adam.

The image of God was both of them together.

Not male & male, or female & female, but male and female.

God speaks quite a bit to us about NOT being gay - atrol:

 

[genuineoriginal]

I get that.

But let me play devil's advocate for a moment in a secular stance.

If we now have the technology to perpetuate the species without two people (male & female) personally connecting in sexual intercourse, ..... then would it be valid to claim heterosexuals are still needed in order to perpetuate the species?

With a single EMP, the technology would be rendered non-functional.
Yes, it is still valid to claim that heterosexuals will always be needed in order to perpetuate the species.

 

[Tambora]

God speaks quite a bit to us about NOT being gay - atrol:

Yep.
And lusting, and fornication, and adultery, and murder, and liars, and divorce, and drunkenness, and theft, and trickery, and bribery, etc., etc., etc.
Every sin imaginable right on down to the very thoughts you have.

All of which are not God's image, and are unnatural from what God intended.

When you get right down to it, we are all unnatural.

 

[Tambora]

EMP

?

 

[patrick jane]

With a single EMP, the technology would be rendered non-functional.
Yes, it is still valid to claim that heterosexuals will always be needed in order to perpetuate the species.

electro magnetic pulse ? - atrol:

 

[Tambora]

electro magnetic pulse ? - atrol:

Could be.
I'm not sure what he meant.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well unless 100% of cases of homosexual/bisexuality are down to 'nurture/environment' it's pretty obvious folk are simply wired that way. If you're heterosexual then you could no more "choose" to be gay than become the Eiffel Tower...

 

[Lon]

Well unless 100% of cases of homosexual/bisexuality are down to 'nurture/environment' it's pretty obvious folk are simply wired that way. If you're heterosexual then you could no more "choose" to be gay than become the Eiffel Tower...

Incorrect. While it is about temptation and what 'temps' us, I did NOT act on that until marriage at the age of 27. Am I rare? Perhaps, but that isn't the point. The point is that sin is an act. If God told me to remain single, "getting married" (an act) would be for me, a sin.

Please listen:
In order to help young men and women combat sexuality/sensuality, Paul said: Treat all older women as mothers and all younger women as sisters, in all purity (and conversely, fathers and brothers).

If you are looking at a person of the opposite sex (or in this case the same) as if they were your brother/sister in Christ, belonging to Him, your life motivators become INCREDIBLY different. You treat the sister as if she belongs to another (Christ), and so tell her so when/if she were to even make advances: "Until God give you a husband, don't awaken love until it desires - Song of Solomon 2:7, 3:5, 8:4 You are my sister and my friend and unless God does the giving, another man's wife or God's alone."

Intojoy was getting at this with his Billy Graham thread. The reason we have failing pastors and church workers is because by and large, we fail to do as Paul says. We fail to treat others as creations belonging to the Hand of God. We all fail on this, but to whatever degree we have done so, we have lost sight of our calling.

All Christians MUST be against fornication, adultery, and homosexuality because it treats others as objects of human desire, rather than belonging solely to the God of the universe. When we love each other like sisters and brothers in Christ, all this sexual nonsense falls by the wayside because it is self-interested, not other interested at all. THAT is why I married my best friend. I couldn't see her any other way, until then. -Mark 10:9

 

[Arthur Brain]

Incorrect. While it is about temptation and what 'temps' us, I did NOT act on that until marriage at the age of 27. Am I rare? Perhaps, but that isn't the point. The point is that sin is an act. If God told me to remain single, "getting married" (an act) would be for me, a sin. In order to help young men and women combat sexuality, Paul said: Treat all older women as mothers and all younger women as sisters, in all purity.

If you are looking at a person of the opposite sex (or in this case the same) as if they were your brother/sister in Christ, belonging to Him, your life motivators become INCREDIBLY different. You treat the sister as if she belongs to another, and so tell her so when she makes advances: "Until God give you a husband, don't awaken love until it desires - Song of Solomon 2:7, 3:5, 8:4"

Intojoy was getting at this with his Billy Graham thread. The reason we have failing pastors and church workers is because by and large, we fail to do as Paul says. We fail to treat others as creations belonging to the Hand of God. We all fail on this, but to whatever degree we have done so, we have lost sight of our calling.

All Christians MUST be against fornication, adultery, and homosexuality because it treats others as objects of human desire, rather than belonging solely to the God of the universe. When we love each other like sisters and brothers in Christ, all this sexual nonsense falls by the wayside because it is self-interested, not other interested at all. THAT is why I married my best friend. I couldn't see her any other way, until then. -Mark 10:9

Sorry but no in regards to the subject. To act on any temptation would involve there being a desire in the first place and if you're heterosexual then you don't have any in regards to your own gender, and that's beyond choice be it sexual or romantic or anything else. Otherwise what's the point in having any terms?

 

[Lon]

Sorry but no in regards to the subject.

Then an impasse.... "No" is unacceptable, and really inexcusable after clarification is understood. The concept is beyond physical/sexual, else there is no point. Love insists on being selfless. That alone, precludes the genetic discussion. This OP article only accentuates the homosexual problem further. Whether it was nature or nurture is only complicated by choice thereof. If it is pavlovian (learned) then it is so much the worse for it.

To act on any temptation would involve there being a desire in the first place

...and all of them wrong to enact upon without loving parameters, that God clearly gives. Let me say that another way so you get it: There is only one way, ever, that it is okay to be sexual.

and if you're heterosexual then you don't have any in regards to your own gender

Worse, it involves having no control over your, our, my sexual impulses and worse, an inability to love another without being self-centered and focused in one's flesh. Granted society shoves these, but it is animalistic hedonism. Imago Deo demands a higher order of love.

and that's beyond choice

...if you are nothing but an animal.

be it sexual or romantic or anything else.

:nono: It is, in fact, the lowest form of attraction and self-loved egocentrism.

Otherwise what's the point in having any terms?

We don't need to really, it is "sin," or "not sin."

 

[Lighthouse]

Artie clearly doesn't understand how sin works.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then an impasse.... "No" is unacceptable, and really inexcusable after clarification is understood. The concept is beyond physical/sexual, else there is no point. Love insists on being selfless. That alone, precludes the genetic discussion. This OP article only accentuates the homosexual problem further. Whether it was nature or nurture is only complicated by choice thereof. If it is pavlovian (learned) then it is so much the worse for it.

Then an impasse it is although apologies for taking so long to reply. I'd forgotten about this thread. In regards to love then in it is indeed selfless so any arguing over genetics or orientation would be moot one way or the other?

...and all of them wrong to enact upon without loving parameters, that God clearly gives. Let me say that another way so you get it: There is only one way, ever, that it is okay to be sexual.

In which case I would surmise that nigh on or approaching near 100% of people have failed that particular litmus test whether straight, bi or gay etc.

Worse, it involves having no control over your, our, my sexual impulses and worse, an inability to love another without being self-centered and focused in one's flesh. Granted society shoves these, but it is animalistic hedonism. Imago Deo demands a higher order of love.

Well, where it comes to orientation then I had no say in my own and I see a difference between love/lust regardless.

...if you are nothing but an animal.
:nono: It is, in fact, the lowest form of attraction and self-loved egocentrism.

We don't need to really, it is "sin," or "not sin."

As above, and I'm not entirely sure as to what you're on about here frankly as being attracted to people isn't a form of egocentrism in itself. It simply happens...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Artie clearly doesn't understand how sin works.

Thanks for that 'Doctor'...