"Twin Studies and Homosexuality"

[Bravus]

The point Gay made some time ago in the thread was not really taken up. It was that if Kevin(wrx) either marries a woman or doesn't marry (and is celibate in that case) he has done his duty. It is not anyone else's duty but Gay's to consider his own actions and his own soul. If Romans 14 is about anything it is about not judging other believers. 

[bonnie]

2 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

Bonnie, that's why I asked what you considered to be a "lifestyle".... to clarify.

Why is assuming the worst in someone ungodly?  Did you think I was assuming the worst about you???  If so, that's not true.

The rest of what I wrote was not a condemnation of you.  It was merely my thoughts on the topic.

You were the one that said assuming the worst about someone was not godly  as if you were  refering  to something I   said. Yes I believe it was meant for me.   I frankly dont care about someones personal life. Little different when their personal life is shared  day after day  always ending with condeming "those other guys"  and  claiming God might not  mean what he said.

[bonnie]

21 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

If Romans 14 is about anything it is about not judging other believers. 

Do yoi think Gay could benefit

from the above quote as well? There is page after page of just that.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

1 hour ago, bonnie said:

You were the one that said assuming the worst about someone was not godly  as if you were  refering  to something I   said. Yes I believe it was meant for me.

Yes, I said that assuming the worst about someone was not godly.  It wasn't meant specifically for you. 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

17 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

It's like I already said. the big "I am right you are wrong" hub bub has flopped again.

agreed...  

 

[Bravus]

Wahey, on Page 6 we're back around to the topic!

Interestingly, many of the twin studies are old (1952). This one from 1998 is probably the best overview: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41465642?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Much of the recent work is around epigenetics rather than genetics. This is an interesting paper: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

4 hours ago, David Geelan said:

The point Gay made some time ago in the thread was not really taken up. It was that if Kevin(wrx) either marries a woman or doesn't marry (and is celibate in that case) he has done his duty. It is not anyone else's duty but Gay's to consider his own actions and his own soul. If Romans 14 is about anything it is about not judging other believers. 

Those who have read their Bibles know better than to think such a selfish thought as that they have no responsibility for their neighbor's soul.  It is truly selfish, like passing by on the other side of the road, to see someone in a mess of sin and to keep silent and do nothing about it.

[Bravus]

I'll dive into that Pillard and Bailey paper I linked above, for those without access to the journal, and paste some stuff here.

"Pillard and Weinrich's (1986) primary finding was that nonheterosexual male probands (2-6 on the Kinsey scale) had an excess of nonheterosexual brothers (22%), whereas heterosexual male probands (0 or 1 on the Kinsey scale) had only 4% nonheterosexual brothers, close to the population average."

'Probands' just means 'participants'. This is a study of brothers, not twins, but showed that gay men had a 22% probability of having a gay brother, whereas the probability for straight men was 4%, the prevalence in the whole population. As I mentioned in one of my first posts in this thread: if homosexuality was entirely genetically determined we would expect the proportion to be higher, but if genes were irrelevant we would expect it to be lower.

"Table 1 lists recent family studies of sexual orientation. ... To summarize the tabulated reports, we note that nonheterosexual male probands have from 2 to 5 times as many nonheterosexual brothers (most of whom were in the 5-6 range on the Kinsey scale) as do heterosexual pro- bands. The heterosexual probands, in turn, have rates of nonheterosexuality among their brothers that are about equal to the population frequency, based on other large survey studies. Nonheterosexual women also appear to have more nonheterosexual sisters than do heterosexual women, although the familiality estimates for women vary more widely."

Bailey and Pillard (1991, 1993) studied pairs of twins:

"Probands were generally accurate in assessing their sibling's sexual orientation. In the male sample 56 MZ twins were ascertained, 52% of whom were concordant for a nonheterosexual orientation, 54 DZ twins were ascer- tained, 22% of whom were concordant [the same as for nontwin brothers according to Pillard and Weinrich (1986)], and 57 adopted male sibs were ascertained, 1 1% of whom were concordant with the gay male proband. ... The female proband study yielded concordance rates of 48% for MZ twins, 16% for DZ twins, and 6% for adopted sisters."

'MZ' means 'monozygotic' (identical twins) while 'DZ' means 'dizygotic' (fraternal twins). The same pattern - 22% - was observed for fraternal twins as for brothers, but for male identical twins the concordance rose to 52% and for female identical twins to 48%. That is, the more genetically similar siblings are, the more likely they are to have the same

"The few available examples of MZ twins raised apart (Eckert et al. 1986; Whitam et al. 1993) show a degree of concordance, at least for males, similar to the cited observations of MZ twins raised together."

[Tom Wetmore]

11 hours ago, David Geelan said:

Just a side thought I had: why do we assume the angels in Sodom were male? Angels may well be sexless, since there is no marrying and giving in marriage in heaven. We don't even know that they presented as male, I don't think.

While this may be a passing thought easily dismissed by most here apparently, I think it does deserve at least a closer look.  It does illustrate yet another set of assumptions that are made, including by translators of the original Hebrew.   We easily assume only a male gender specific meaning of the English word "men" by itself and assume the point of the sentence in context is to identify the gender of the three visitors that appear to Abraham and then the two later to Lot. However, both the English word "men" or the singular "man" and the Hebrew words so translated can be and are frequently used in a gender inclusive sense and to mean "mankind" "human" "people".

 A key underlying point of the narrative in Genesis 18, is that at their initial appearance to both Abraham and later to Lot was that they did not appear in angelic form, but rather they appeared in human form and were greeted and treated as such. The reaction to them would very likely have been quite different had they not appeared as humans. That was a point of the story, treatment of strangers and visitors in our midst, contrasting the immediate welcome and offer of kindness and hospitality by Abraham and Lot with the extreme opposite reaction of the already condemned mob of people of Sodom.  It is also worth noting that the attacking hostile Sodom mob is described as a mixed multitude of not just men, but as all the people of Sodom, young and old, male and female.  They were not just men.

I am not posting this to start an argument or to even support the side point David makes, but rather to demonstrate the role our assumptions and preconceived ideas play in reading and understanding, and indeed in general observations of life.  Life and language are most definitely fraught with ambiguity, uncertainty, nuance and require far more interpretation of what we think we perceive.  We cannot assume absolute accuracy and precision, nor that there is ever only one possible absolute truth of very much of any of it.

[Tom Wetmore]

Some people assume that leading a horse to water is always easily and simply done or that there is only one way to do so and that they indeed know how to lead the horse to water, and others assume throwing water on the horse is the same as giving the horse water to drink and that it will achieve the same results. 

 

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

While this may be a passing thought easily dismissed by most here apparently, I think it does deserve at least a closer look.

It almost looks like you read my post in the other thread.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

3 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

There are cases where one can quote the Bible all day, and yet, not be Biblical. I guess you called me "militant" because I am urging a more Biblical use of the Bible.

the above reminds me of a sermon by pastor and author, Clarence Schilt: "You can be so 'right,' you're 'wrong'"...

[Gail]

27 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

the above reminds me of a sermon by pastor and author, Clarence Schilt: "You can be so 'right,' you're 'wrong'"...

I miss Clarence and his wife Diana... They had awesome sermons

[Gail]

17 minutes ago, jackson said:

My original post was that since God had called homosexual behavior an abomination and grounds for denial of eternal life, then there must be a choice involved ; hence it was irrelevant whether such behavior had genetic or environmental components.

This is fair enough. What has been happening too often is that people are assuming here that Gay is currently practising homosexual behaviour and addressing him based on their assumption AND accusing him of promoting the lifestyle. I would like to see:

1) That the threads that are engaged at the moment stay on topic and not delve into whether Gay is practising or not. Feel free to PM Gay to discuss that privately with him. 

2) Address the issues he raises in this forum regarding the church and relating to GBLTs. This minority group will not go away and they are a big mission field on their own. We as Christians are called to love even our enemy; we need to be informed as to their personal struggles in order to bring them in. There is much that Jesus can do for them if church members would stop forming doors and walls to keep them out.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

 

13 minutes ago, Gail said:

I miss Clarence and his wife Diana... They had awesome sermons

  they're good people!  Clarence is one smart cookie!

[Gail]

IOW, if he starts a topic that involves a personal experience, then talk to him personally. If he begins a topic that is more general in nature, treat it as such.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson, as I previously said:  Al of us have bias and assumptions.  That includes both you and I. 

I do not have a problem with your thesis that the Bible calls the practice of homosexuality sinful.

Such is not the issue that I am discussing.

David G was correct in stating that in making your case you were involved in circular reasoning.   That does not mean that your position is wrong.  It just points out a flaw in your argument.   It points out as aspect of your argument that has not been substantuated.

The bottom line is that sometimes people lose arguments due to the fact that they have failed to develop a cogent presentation of their case that covers the issues.

 

 

 

[JoeMo]

14 hours ago, David Geelan said:

Just a side thought I had: why do we assume the angels in Sodom were male? Angels may well be sexless, since there is no marrying and giving in marriage in heaven. We don't even know that they presented as male, I don't think.

I can't find in scripture where it says that angels are without gender (sexless).  I agree that it says they won't marry, but can you give a scriptural reference that says they are without gender?  Just a question; not a push-back.

[Bravus]

It's a speculative thing, not something I'm advancing as an argument. Apart from Earth-centrism, there's no good prima facie reason to assume they are gendered. The Bible doesn't seem to say they aren't but doesn't say they are. 

Others have demonstrated that the Bible does say they presented as men in this story. I still maintain that the story is about condemning rape and - in context but bizarrely for us - inhospitability, not homosexuality. 

[Bravus]

Here's a definition and discussion of circular reasoning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Its specific focus is on arguments that assume that which they set out to prove. 

We have seen numerous examples here of arguments that assume homosexuality is wrong in setting out to prove homosexuality is wrong. 

I've used the term carefully, precisely, technically. It's not a pejorative or slur, it's a description of a particular logical fallacy. 

I think we can all agree that it's important to have clear, valid arguments for the positions advanced. 

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, David Geelan said:

Here's a definition and discussion of circular reasoning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Its specific focus is on arguments that assume that which they set out to prove. 

We have seen numerous examples here of arguments that assume homosexuality is wrong in setting out to prove homosexuality is wrong. 

I've used the term carefully, precisely, technically. It's not a pejorative or slur, it's a description of a particular logical fallacy. 

I think we can all agree that it's important to have clear, valid arguments for the positions advanced. 

So, David, if God says it's wrong, is it wrong? or is it an assumption to think so?  It appears to boil down to that fundamental question with some here.

[Bravus]

What we are in the process of seeking to establish is whether God says it is wrong.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green asked:

So, David, if God says it's wrong, is it wrong? or is it an assumption to think so?

As I have  said, all of us have assumptions and are biased.  One of my assumptions is:  God establishes what is right and what is wrong.  If you and I are discussing an issue and if we can agree that God establishes what is right and what is wrong, we can then potentially have a discussion as to whether or not God has established that something is wrong.

However, you and I may not agree on that point.  There may be more than one standard for determining what is right and what is wrong.  [NOTE:  I am not saying that an alternate standard rules out God establishing a standard.]   The law may establish a standard for determining what is right and what is wrong.  [E.G.  I have recently moved to California.  California law both gives permission to make a U-turn in specific circumstances and prohibits making a U-turn in other circumstances.   This standard differs in some respects from the law where I recently lived.  But, I am now under California law and I must comply with it.]  If you and I can agree that the law establishes certain boundaries of what is wrong, we can potentially have a discussion within that context.  That context may include a discussion as to what the law actually said.

This is just basic ethics.  I once took a graduate course in clinical ethics.  In this course it was pointed out that  there were more than one standard that proscribed/prescribed the boundaries of my clinical practice.  I was obligated to adhere to all of them.

Yes, Green, I am not David.  But, I decided to respond anyway.

 

 

[Robert]

On 3/16/2016 at 1:15 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Temptation, in itself, is not sin.

I'm entering this debate a bit late....

Temptation is not sin, but the mechanism in you, i.e., "sin in the flesh" is sin and disqualifies you of heaven. 

[Robert]

Quote

Again, this is circular reasoning, based in the *assumption* that homosexuality is sin.

There's no assumption.  Everything outside of perfection is sin.  Hence Christ's pronouncement:  "You must be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Does God have homosexual tendencies?  No.

Is God predisposed to anything sinful?  No

Then again outside perfection is sin and cannot enter heaven.  That's why we must be changed at the coming of Christ.