How would fundies react if genetics or biochemical caused homosexuality

So how would they react to t his would christian coalition burn scientist who discovered this at the stake.

They'll adapt.

But it is genetic.

Homophobes and, for those etymology obsessed semantic warriors who unreasonably think the term homophobe doesn't apply, others compulsively obsessed with hot man-on-man action not involving themselves don't really care what causes homosexuality. They argue the point only because they think that others might care and be converted to the cause.

It would not change the fact that it is wrong.

genetics isn't the only factor.

2 camps at least - one of them will deny it's true at all, and that's a "lie" made up by "Darwinists."

Another will claim that it was a genetic or biochemical "fault" or "disease" which caused it, and that its "abnormail should be "fixed".

(Truth is, *everything* we do is pretty much genetic or biochemical. Humans are MADE of chemicals! Every thought or feeling is a biochemical reaction! *DURRR!!!*)

So when does it become a "disease", or "fault", or "abnormal"?

I'd argue when it's harms the organism - the individual or species.

Now, not believing in "survival of the species" (evolution - an oversimplified definitional of at, at least) they (fundies) could ignore it, or could say "but it's *is* bad for the species, anyway, since homosexuals don't breed.
(They could cherrypick for evolution. Or find *some* way to label it "unnatural - or as a dysfunction, and something the needs to be cured.)

Or they could try to claim that it IS harmful to to homosexual's are discriminated against, even attacked physically, more suicidal and depressed because of how society treat's the, etc... - Ironically these things are true, because of the actions OF homophobic people like - THEMSELVES!!! < - But they'll leave out that last bit*.)

*(Like this gem:
"Gays would make bad spies, they are a security risk."
"How so?"
"Somebody could find out they are gay and blackmail them, since society is intolerant of gays, and being gay cost them their job, get them fired, because some companies won't hire gays because they're a security risk....")

People will use whatever convoluted and circular and non-nonsensical arguments to justify their pre-existing bigotry, hatred and xenophobia.

I remember one by Fleshlight towards MrsA a short while back that went kind like:

Fleshy: "Pot should be (remain) illegal because it makes people take dangerous risks."
MsrA: "How so?"
Fleshy: "Well, it's illegal, so people who use it are taking dangerous risks of arrest."

(Which wouldn't BE risks if it wasn't illegal, or course....)

Stupid arguments against something doesn't prove that the debate is invalid.

I've never said any such thing.

How so?

If God sticks your soul in a gay body whose fault is that? Yours or his?

Personally I do think it is genetic. Dealing with some from previous jobs and now at the jail it's freaking obvious that these people didn't choose to be gay. It's, for lack of a better phrase, in their blood.

Its a matter of opinion.

I think it is wrong too.

But, if you want to get it one with another guy, go right ahead.

On this though it can not be a matter of opinion.

You can't say someone who is genetically born a certain way is wrong. Hell that's what whites used to say about blacks a couple hundred years ago.

They were wrong according to the whites simply because their genetics gave them black skin.

Nope.

What happens if everyone is born gay? Do we let 'genetics' become the downfall of humanity because you have a bunch of gay people who only want to screw gay people?

Hell, how is one 'born' gay, as opposed to 'not' being born gay?

IMO, its wrong because mankind wasn't 'made' that way to continue existing.

I don't 'know' if people are born gay. Hell, neither do you. So it could also be a result of their surroundings, instead of their 'genetics.'

Surroundings?

No.

It's genetic. If it boiled down to surroundings there would be no gay black men or women because that is one "surrounding" that is still hostile to gays. Hostile especially to black gay men.

*sigh*

My stance is that it is between the person and God. Not the person, God and me. It is none of my business. I do not condone the lifestyle, and neither do I condemn it because it is not my place to.

When asked, what I think I usually tell them it really doesn't matter what I think. It is between you and God and if you want to know what God thinks, then there is a book they should read.

I treat gay people like I treat anyone else. Oddly enough, I have been the object of affection for a few women and I am not offended by it, nor do I sit in judgement over them.

No one who claims to be a Christian should, IMO.

Well, your god is a hypocritical asshole, but then again I guess he created you in His image.

[FONT=&quot]Nooby question: if its genetic, wont natural selection tend to erase the trait?[/FONT]

Obviously, you know more than God.

A fair amount of gay people have kids. For example, our former governor here in New Jersey.

With stained glass windows depicting symbolic victories over sinful genes a long time ago in a double-helix galaxy far, far away...

Beyond that, genetics isn't always a singular on/off switch, especially when it comes to behavioral predispositions. Only idiots with a grossly simplified misunderstanding of genetics think that the claim that homosexuality is genetic conflicts with the false idea that homosexuals don't have children.

Not that any sane person thinks that it matters beyond being a curiosity whether homosexuality is genetic, of course.

Sorry.

"Homophobe" is a stupid word used by stupid people.

The proper term is bigot.

It's a stupid term to you since you're a moronic purveyor of semantic gibberish who's compulsively obsessed with etymology. To other people it's just a term, roughly a shorthand for "person who is bigoted against homosexuals" "Bigot" is clearly an inadequate substitute that only a retard could love as it doesn't address who the target of the bigotry might be.

You're such a fag.

Homophobia is someone who is afraid of homosexuals.

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

Clearly, bigot is the proper term. Attributing fear to every person who is prejudiced is specious at the very best and intellectually dishonest and misleading at worst.

And since when did every different subset of bigot need their own term?

Yeah.

Which is why you find SO MANY gay people in extreme orthodox religious communities.



You can't prove that it is genetic.

People can have a genetic predisposition for a number of things.

Obesity, alcoholism for example.

Genetics in no way absolves one of personal responsibility.

I was actually going to mention the same thing.