Maaaaaaaarten said:
This is a pretty good analogy. In my opinion it would be ridiculous to sue the owner of a liquor store for discrimination against alcoholics if he refused to sell alcohol to an alcoholic because of moral concerns. But yet there are several cases in the US of fundamentally the same happening with Christians refusing to provide services for a gay wedding.......
The difference is that an alcoholic is dangerous to himself and others, a homosexual is not. I think Jspear understands this, which is why he doesn?t have a problem supporting their lifestyle to the extent that he will recommend another shop. Some Christians, like Michelle Bachmann?s husband, do go so far as to try to convert gays to heterosexuality, but that approach has been widely discredited.
Jspear said:
But the question I have through all of your points is "what about my religious convictions?" Am I not free to exercise them? I would agree I shouldn't be allowed to exercise my beliefs if they cause harm to others, but my stance on this issue hardly causes harm to others.
You don?t think not being able to purchase items at a store where everyone else can is not a form of harm? Seriously?
You as an individual don?t get to determine what is harmful. Society makes that decision. Yes, people will disagree, but being free from discrimination in a shop is pretty basic.
Jspear said:
Thanks. From reading this article it seems to me like they're still looking but haven't yet found rock solid evidence. Words such as "suggests" "seems" ect. The science community is certainly not unanimous on this issue. Another question I have is what about those who were gay but then went "straight?" Or what about people who are bisexual or individuals who are attracted to animals?? Is there a gene for all these sort of "orientations?"
From the article:
The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established
The uncertainty is not over whether a tendency to become homosexual is inherited, but how. It?s analogous to the disagreements that some evolutionary theorists have over whether all evolution involves natural selection. To argue against natural selection in specific cases is not to argue against evolution, and likewise, to argue that homosexuality is not passed on by genes is not to argue that it?s not hereditary. These epi marks referred to in the article are probably methylation groups on genes, that have long been known to be involved in inheritance of other traits.
Maaaaaaaarten said:
What this article does mention however is very clear evidence that homosexuality is not genetic, the same which I was about to post. Namely, studies to monozygotic twins have found that it is actually quite common for monozygotic twins to have different sexual orientations. Since monozygotic twins have the same DNA and since it's quite clear that there are many monozygotic twins where one of the twin siblings is homosexual and the other heterosexual, it's quite clear that homosexuality is not genetic in the sense that, say, race is genetic. To my knowledge it's quite impossible for monozygotic twins to have different races or genders, but it's quite common for them to have different sexual orientations.
Again, you?re missing the point that not all inheritance is genetic. In the context of Jspear?s argument, this is irrelevant, because in neither case does the child have any choice about his/her inheritance. Another example, that would apply to monozygotes, is if one of the twins experienced a rare gene mutation after the egg split. That twin in that case would be genetically different from the other twin. This would be extremely rare, but the point is, the offspring have no choice about what happens in the womb.
While I?m at it, I want to respond to your (I think it was you?) point that just because something is natural in the sense that animals do it, doesn?t mean it?s appropriate for humans to do it. I don?t disagree with that point, but the natural argument is often used as evidence that something has a hereditary basis. E.g., if other species express homosexuality, that strongly suggests that the trait is inherited. That in turn means it had some survival value (as the linked article discusses), so we should take some care before we dismiss it as pathological.
Now sometimes what is natural in other animals can be regarded as pathological for us. E.g., discrimination based on skin color probably originally promoted survival, as it allowed animals the ability to distinguish kin from non-kin. The male drive to copulate with as many females as possible ensured that the male?s genes would be passed on to as many offspring as possible. The powerfully attractive taste of sugar motivated animals to get enough calories to fuel their bodies.
These are natural behaviors that we recognize are no longer appropriate in today?s world; they are no longer advantageous to our species. But by the same token, many of us also recognize that much of human behavior at the time the Bible was written is also not advantageous to our species. If Jspear were posting from the point of view of some non-human animal, he would argue vociferously in favor of discrimination against skin color, promiscuity, and gorging on sugar, because in the world he came from, those behaviors were essential to survival. To other animals, those behaviors are automatic, there can be no argument against them. If animals could write books, they would say in no uncertain terms that any deviation from that kind of behavior is sinful?and from their perspective, they would be right.
Jspear is basically doing the same thing by arguing in favor of certain behaviors prescribed in the Bible. In that world, with the knowledge available at the time, those behaviors might have seemed advantageous for the species. E.g., dietary restrictions at that time might have made sense, but are not necessarily applicable today. RF posted some other examples. Evolution changes what is necessary or advantageous.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram