17 Dec 06
Originally posted by whodeyLikewise, if I am attracted to someone of the same sex would I be categorized as a homosexual even though I choose not to act on it or lust after them?
My point in saying this is that morality plays a role in what we choose to do or choose not to do. For example, I may choose to be celibate based on the fact that I feel called to the priesthood and am feeling called to be celibate by God. Another example is if I am in a relationship with someone and I choose to remain faithful to them and not cheat on them ...[text shortened]... are living a lie if you believe their sexual oreintation to be cast in stone. You be the judge.
Of course. Sexual orientation(i.e.what sex you are attracted to) has nothing to do with whether or not you act on it. Am I an asexual if I choose to remain celebate? I think not.
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by whiteroseyoure asexual if you beat off
Likewise, if I am attracted to someone of the same sex would I be categorized as a homosexual even though I choose not to act on it or lust after them?
Of course. Sexual orientation(i.e.what sex you are attracted to) has nothing to do with whether or not you act on it. Am I an asexual if I choose to remain celebate? I think not.
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by whiteroseThe original post raised the question as to whether or not we were to blame for our sins. Being attracted to someone, in fact, anyone on any level is not a sin. However, lusting after someone or giving into that lust can be a sin. Therefore, one can have a greater propensity for a particular sin based upon what they are tempted with in terms of what they are attracted to. After all, you will not likely sin unless inticed. However, one does not have to entertain temptations that are sins to them if one chooses not to. Therefore, free will remains in tact no matter the genetic propensity for certain behavoirs. It is merely a choice as to whether or not you decide to give into them.
Likewise, if I am attracted to someone of the same sex would I be categorized as a homosexual even though I choose not to act on it or lust after them?
Of course. Sexual orientation(i.e.what sex you are attracted to) has nothing to do with whether or not you act on it. Am I an asexual if I choose to remain celebate? I think not.
18 Dec 06
Originally posted by rooktakesqueenThis is a simplistic and not very useful view of genetics.
i saw a documentary the other night that claimed a certain number of scientists had found proof that a person is infact born gay, basically, whatever happens to this person throughout their childhood or throughout their life, they will still be gay... the documentary went one step further in saying they have found common characteristics in dna in alco ...[text shortened]... t say for a moment this is true and we are born this way... are we then to blame for our sins..?
Let's say you're born with a gene that leads you to have a propensity for an early heart attack. Does this mean you will have an early heart attack?
There's no way of knowing since what actually happens to you is based on so many factors occurring throughout your life.
The same is true for propensity to violence and aggression, and probably sexual orientation. I don't think anyone is born anything, other than male or female (and maybe even that can come under question in some cases). We are born with tendencies and propensities, the actualisation of depending entirely on the world we grow up in and the events that occur in our lives.
18 Dec 06
1 edit
Let's say you're born with a gene that leads you to have a propensity for an early heart attack. Does this mean you will have an early heart attack?well yes actually... by most chances it means you will... in fact, a lot of illnesses can be diagnosed from birth by studying dna, not all though of course. if you dont believe me facts speak for themselves, to use your example, a history of heart problems in the family will by most chances be carried to the next generation, this is passed through in our dna; so to answer your question, a history of early heart attacks in the family denotes that you will have a high chance of having a early heart attack, though it can skip a generation; you are saying we are born "pure" and it is only society that shapes us, this - scientifically speaking, simply isnt true
also, i find it very navie to state it is not a very useful view of genetics... do you realise what you have said here, we may have found proof that a large part of our character is made up of our dna from birth and you say this is not very useful...!
18 Dec 06
Originally posted by rooktakesqueenI think what ammanion is saying is correct, but you two are confusing each other.
well yes actually... by most chances it means you will... in fact, a lot of illnesses can be diagnosed from birth by studying dna, not all though of course. if you dont believe me facts speak for themselves, to use your example, a history of heart problems in the family will by most chances be carried to the next generation, this is passed through in ...[text shortened]... part of our character is made up of our dna from birth and you say this is not very useful...!
Okay, for an example. Let's imagine I was born with a gene which gave me a predisposition to become a millionaire. Sounds silly, I know, but it is (a) merely a hypothetical example and, (b) a possibility - it could work by stimulating me to work hard, or have an especially grasping nature or by allowing me a good insight, that I may play the stock market. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that I WILL become a millionaire. I may be born in a time when money isn't invented. I might be born into an area where it's very hard to make it. I may suffer a childhood illness and be confined to hospital for the rest of my life. The gene makes it MORE LIKELY, but not certain.
Same is true with heart disease. Some people have a genetic predisposition to have a heat attack. That said, they may live a healthy lifestyle, keep their stress and cholesterol down and die as an old man or woman from old age. Or they may get cancer, or they may walk out in front of a bus.
It's important to understand that genes operate within a physical and chemical environment, which is every bit as important for the outcome of the individual as the gene itself.
18 Dec 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemOh RBHILL is quite happy to openly say homosexuals are wrong, evil, going to hell and deserving of endless punishment. He's done so many times before.
An excellent illustration of how some Christians lack the spine to openly say, "homosexuality is wrong", even though they believe it completely.
18 Dec 06
Originally posted by StarrmanSo your in favour of sodomy, huh? You regard it as an acceptable practice, right? I suppose you practie it yourself? After all, there is no sin, so why not, right?
Oh RBHILL is quite happy to openly say homosexuals are wrong, evil, going to hell and deserving of endless punishment. He's done so many times before.
18 Dec 06
Originally posted by StarrmanWahahahaaaahahahahahaaaaaaaa!!! Your not well, you know that?
Are you you're not just a little bit interested? Come on, it's common knolwedge that there's a correlation between latent homosexuality and homophobia. I promise I won't hurt you.