It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gay Genes, Religous implications ?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
According to recent investigation of DNA sequences in families with gay brothers, several combinations of genes might determine the sexual orientation.

www.scienceagogo.com...

What would be the religious implications ?

for instance, if the Creationists and the Intelligent Desigeners were right about the origin of man, wouldn't the Creator Himself be responsible for the abomination of our DNA ????
- was God not such an "Intelligent Desiger" or having a bad hairday ?, hey everybody makes misstakes
- is God a closeted homosexual for putting the stuff in there ?
- Or did Satan put the renegade chromosomes in there ???? (now there is your escape hatch)



[edit on 3-2-2005 by Countermeasures]




posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I LOVE IT!!!!

I really hope they can prove this beyond all doubt.

Man I want to see some religious fanatics squirm!!!!!



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
1. You overcome your weakness. You can help who you are. People born with physical handicaps (which some out there question whether or not it's actually a handicap) do all sorts of things they are assumed to not be able to do. The religous will see this as a "mental handicap" all sorts of gays have lived a straight life and wern't that miserable, some were. Some people don't want to control themselves. A a genetic disposition NEVER gives you the right to behave as you please, irellevant of the disposition. We expect alcoholics to not overimbibe on alcohol, but it doesn't change that they are alcoholics...and it does not change the fact that they have that tendancy. Gluttony is a sin, and many obese have a genetic dispoaition towards it. I suspect every sin has a genetic disposition. It's why there are scriptures about the spirit and the flesh constantly warring with each other.

2. Since many creationists believe that some genetic tendancies are a part of a weakening genome, and that weakening is a part of proving that we are devolving, it is likely to be seen as proof . One way to prove this is to see if the one particular one that may be the cause for the disposition has LESS varient information, more repetitivie information, or a combination of both. This is not all roses for any particualr pro gay camp.

3. The only thing that will be "good" about that for gays is if the Religous throw a fit and do not do simple scientific testing, making themselves look more idiotic by the moment, or do not accept it when it is fact. This is likely to happen, and I'm not looking forward to it at all.



[edit on 3-2-2005 by jlc163]



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
This topic has been addressed in a previous thread. The notion of a gay gene is complete bunk. Complex social behaviors are not dictated by single genes as this article points out. Furthermore, if there were a 'gay gene' 100% of those who possessed the gene would be gay, not 60%.

[edit on 3-2-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I honestly fail to see what religious people have against homosexuals. It's just another instance of religion picking on people who don't fit into their little box of how a person should be.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by toechopper
I honestly fail to see what religious people have against homosexuals. It's just another instance of religion picking on people who don't fit into their little box of how a person should be.

I don't think they've got anything against homosexuals personally, (WBC excluded) but they believe that the act of homosexuality is sinful.... love the sinner hate the sin. Although I am not religious and probably not the best qualified here to answer this question.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
It's hard to fathom the logic of the church in it's abhorrence of Gay's considering half the clergy are gay themselves...

Now if we could get them to start sleeping with people over the age of 16 that would be a good start...



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by toechopper
I honestly fail to see what religious people have against homosexuals. It's just another instance of religion picking on people who don't fit into their little box of how a person should be.

I don't think they've got anything against homosexuals personally, (WBC excluded) but they believe that the act of homosexuality is sinful.... love the sinner hate the sin. Although I am not religious and probably not the best qualified here to answer this question.


I dunno, I've seen some "Christians" up at my college campus who treat gays pretty crappy. As a Catholic myself, I personally see the whole "homosexual relations is a sin" thing as stupid. If two people love each other, isn't that all that matters?



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   


I dunno, I've seen some "Christians" up at my college campus who treat gays pretty crappy.

This is certainly undeniable. Discrimintion exists in most groups... though not in all members of any particular group. Hell, the rednecks who live three doors down from me are extremely homophobic, but I don't lump them into one group and say "White people from Arizona hate homosexuals."


As a Catholic myself, I personally see the whole "homosexual relations is a sin" thing as stupid. If two people love each other, isn't that all that matters?

Now this is extremely interesting to me. How can you see this as stupid? You can't say your a 'Good' Catholic and believe this can you? You believe in the Bible as the infallible word of God, yet you think rules alleged to have been established by him are 'stupid?' Please clarify. Do you believe that the Bible doesn't speak against homosexuality? Do you think the interpretations are wrong?



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

As a Catholic myself, I personally see the whole "homosexual relations is a sin" thing as stupid. If two people love each other, isn't that all that matters?

Now this is extremely interesting to me. How can you see this as stupid? You can't say your a 'Good' Catholic and believe this can you? You believe in the Bible as the infallible word of God, yet you think rules alleged to have been established by him are 'stupid?' Please clarify. Do you believe that the Bible doesn't speak against homosexuality? Do you think the interpretations are wrong?


The quote that people take from the Bible is that marraige is a union of a man and a woman. Now that may be true, but people are taking the quote and using it as a licence to persecute homosexuals. So I'm not saying that the Bible is stupid by any means, it's just that people are blowing it out of proportions and I find that stupid.

Being a 'good' Catholic is more than just following the Bible word for word. Most of it is about helping and accepting others for who they are. Jesus said that the two most important laws were to love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself. That is what I try to go on. I don't follow everything that the Bible has to say; I'm human and can't be that perfect. I just try to follow what Jesus said and be the best person I can, and I think in the long run that's what he wants me to do. I don't know if that makes me a 'good' Catholic or not, or whether being a 'good' Catholic even matters, because in the long run, it's not the Church I'm going to have to answer to.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   


The quote that people take from the Bible is that marraige is a union of a man and a woman. Now that may be true, but people are taking the quote and using it as a licence to persecute homosexuals. So I'm not saying that the Bible is stupid by any means, it's just that people are blowing it out of proportions and I find that stupid.

Now... I am NOT advocating oppression or persecution of homosexuals, but how do you deal with this passage:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.

This doesn't say anything about marriage between a man and a woman, but seems to very explicitly denounce homosexual behavior. Again, please don't misconstrue my inquiry as acknowledging divine support for the persecution of homosexuals.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
[Now... I am NOT advocating oppression or persecution of homosexuals, but how do you deal with this passage:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.

This doesn't say anything about marriage between a man and a woman, but seems to very explicitly denounce homosexual behavior. Again, please don't misconstrue my inquiry as acknowledging divine support for the persecution of homosexuals.



From a non-religious perspective, I think that you have to look at why Leviticus (or "priestly law") contains that reference, and other laws pertaining to marriage, chastity, and society. Some scholars believe that there are political reasons behind these writings as they were adapted over time depending on the prevailing King/government.

In simple terms, religion was used to control society. Early governments realized that religion was a much stronger force than any legal system ever could be. I'm not saying that God doesn't exist, but I do believe that opportunists co-opted the concept for political reasons (and they are still doing this today.) I also believe that much of the bible was manipulated by prevailing political forces at the time the canon was being written.

It was realized early on that society moved much more smoothly when there was a patriarchal structure--ie: men married women, cared for their children, supported thier families, etc. etc. Also, government didn't want the masses killing each other, stealing, and otherwise mistreating each other. It wasn't enough to just have laws--they used religious concepts, such as the fear of eternal damnation and the reward of heaven as incentives to obey these rules set forth.

Honestly, there are 613 specific codes in the Torah--ranging from how to handle meat to how to have sex with your wife to how to make loans. Doesn't it make more sense that this had more to do with how the government didn't want people to die from eating spoiled food, abuse their wives, or trade with certain groups rather than God came down from the heavens and told them that these things were unholy? Why do you think that Jews don't eat pork? Could it be a toxic bacteria that we now know is salmonella or just God's will?

So back to homosexuality... given the fact that society was such that women had no means to support themselves and fatherless children were a tremendous burden, men were designated as the breadwinners and the nuclear family was born. Anything that went against these concepts was deemed "evil"--adultery, homosexuality, bastard children. Poligamy was initially supported in the bible, but later society felt that it put too much of a burden on one man and overruled the idea.

Using religion to control the masses made sense from a political standpoint and that is why many non Judeo-Christian religions seem to have similar concepts, albeit different rules.

Even today, you can still see evidence that the government supports the idea of a traditional families for economic reasons. Recently, a woman was denied a divorce from a convict in prison for abusing her when the court found out that she was pregnant. Although the father of the child was not the man she was divorcing, the judge felt that because the woman was on welfare, the unborn child needed a father to provide for it's needs and the state shouldn't bear that burden.

Obviously, state support of a traditional marriage structure is visible in the anti-gay marriage amendment.

Perhaps at the time, traditional family structures made sense, however a couple of thousand years later, I think that we are at a different place. Change will occur with a lot of resistance. Thousands of years of political manipulation under the guise of religion is difficult to reverse, especially when nobody will admit that there is a big elephant in the middle of the room.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
what about homosexuals who aren't of the christian faith? they are persecuted by christians for not follwing the christian doctrine? what kind of sense does that make?



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
forget the religious reasons, i'm not a fan of the gay community because i'm sick of them whining for what they miscontrue to be free "rights". i despise most special interest groups, especially those that become near-extremist in pushing their agenda, and that's basically what i see the gay community as.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
This study jumps to to many conclusions and I think they are saying that themselves. I wonder how it would compare if you were to study the same number of families that have a child molester in the family. I know that the 2 should not be compared because more hetero men molest children but is this just a brain disorder or genetic flaw that could be linked to both. It would be interesting to see how men who molest girls compare to men who molest boys in there genetics.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by factfinder38
This study jumps to to many conclusions and I think they are saying that themselves. I wonder how it would compare if you were to study the same number of families that have a child molester in the family. I know that the 2 should not be compared because more hetero men molest children but is this just a brain disorder or genetic flaw that could be linked to both. It would be interesting to see how men who molest girls compare to men who molest boys in there genetics.

Just to clarify, you aren't suggesting that everyone gay molests boys are you?

The bible quoted above is a very classic and funny example of a bible that has been re-written and even made up throughout history by kings and churches to suit their morals and agenda. There is LOADS of research about this, and i have posted on another topic on ATS about it. When it comes down to it, religion aside, people are just frightened of people who are different than they are. In much the same way as people hated the black community not so many years ago. You should learn to love that everyone is different, and try to not let fear run your life.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Just wanted to chime in with another link that seems to be related..

www.betterhumans.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc
From a non-religious perspective,

lmgnyc, thanks for your input. That seems like a reasonable analysis from the non-religious perspective. However, I am paticularly interested in how someone who BELIEVES the words of the Bible are the infallible words of God deals with this.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
i don't see how we can expect everyone to live by the same doctorine,especially in the US. this country was founded on freedom of religion. if your religion doesn't accept homosexuality that's fine. but why try to make people believe your religion is the only way? i could care less if my neighbor has sex with his boyfriend all day long. it doesn't affect me or my family. as for the genetic thing,i don't think so. we are products of our enviroment and all of a sudden gay is in. i can't count the number of "gay" people that were in my high school class(96). because it was the thing to be. true homosexuals don't even like all this craziness. it's the publicity hounds and drama queens who are after all the special treatment crap. it comes down to the fact that everyone should live true to themselves in order to have the happiest life possible and if that is being with a person of the same sex i don't see how that is bad. the hard core christians(fallwells) make it out like homosexuals are predators. most sexual predators are actually hetero. i think this is an issue that everyone should leave alone. we need to focus on more important things...like war,minimum wage,health care,ect.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
It doesn't matter if they think it's sinful or not! It's not their place to judge and hate them for it...not to mention that fact that maybe those gay people will repent on their death bed, just like a lot of them repent for going to strip clubs, looking at porn, cheating on the spouse, cheating on taxes, getting drunk, lying to a significant other, lying to sell a car... on and on and on and on....personally I feel it's more of a hatred thing and the bible is just an excuse and a justification to do so. This is the topic that urns my broomsticks more than any other with religion...to hate a whole group of people, top be so damn hypocritical...unless one can say they are sin free...they ought to shut their mouths about gays!


EDIT...

You overcome your weakness.

Then why are there so many divorced Christians, drunkard Christians, Christians that smoke, Christians at the strip clubs, buying porn.....they haven't over come their problems...or is that only for gays in your book!? It's all sinful...

[edit on 2/4/2005 by LadyV]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join