quic wrote:You should treat the person as you would anyone else.
Right, for the most part.
quic wrote:It's no one's job to convince anyone that anything's wrong... That's God's job.
Wrong. Christians are supposed to help each other in their walks with God. Try reading James sometime.
quic wrote:Maybe you should quit pointing at other people and picking out "Apparent" faults in their Holiness and concentrate on your own.
You are commiting one of several logical fallacies frequently used by pro-SSB (same-sex behavior) advocates. The false dilemma. You are assuming that people are either judgemental and always focus on the sin of others, or don't notice the sins of others at all. There is a third option: a godly concern for your neighbor's spiritual walk and
mutual accountability for sin. Or even just considering a neighbor's behavior to be sinful and saying so, without considering the neighbor to be an inferior person. This last option applies with nonChristians as well.
quic wrote:No one knows yet if it's genetic or not,
Not true. Twin studies show that 20%-60% (depending on the study) of SSA (same-sex attracted) people with an identical (same genes) twin have a SSA twin.
40%-80% of the time, in every study, a SSA person has a twin with the exact same genes who is straight.
One caveat: I'm not sure whether any of the studies accounted for the possibility of bisexuality. Nonetheless, I don't think this invalidates any of the research. They may have accounted for the possibility, anyway.
Thus, we give SSA (same-sex attraction) a 20%-60% genetic correlation. However, even a basic introductory statistics course will tell you that correlation is a weaker result than causation. It is possible for two variables to correlate, while neither causes the other. Common cause is a frequent reason for this, though not really in this case. In the case of SSA, there may be environmental factors which are influenced by how genetic attributes interact with society. Thus, we can reasonably conclude that any genetic causation of SSA is likely well under 60%. However, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there is more to it than genetics.
Also compare the statistical correlation to that of being overweight: overweightness is given a 60%-80% genetic correlation rating.
This is higher than for SSA. If you're going to argue that SSA is genetic, you may as well argue that being overweight is genetic. (Also note that another common pro-SSB argument, though a weak one even if it
did hold water, is that SSA is unchangeable because it is genetic. If you use this logic, losing weight must be utterly impossible. Everyone who has ever claimed to have lost weight must be a lying bigot.)
This is not to say that it is chosen, however. The most frequently cited environmental factors (see
here for a basic list) seem not to be the result of choice.
I hope you realize, unlike many people, that my opposition to the idea that SSA is genetic is
not the result of a notion that it is chosen. It is simply the result of actually examining some of the evidence.
quic wrote:it's definately not "Just a Behaviour" though. Gay people wouldn't choose to "Behave Gay" if they were straight (if that makes sense).
I think what you mean is that they experience SSA (same-sex attraction). You would probably make more sense if you used clear terminology like SSA and SSB rather than ambiguous terminology like "gay" and "homosexual". You would, however, lose the ability to commit another common logical fallacy among the pro-SSB crowd: equivocation (the changing of definitions within an argument).
I will also make it clear that I don't think there's any case, in the Bible or anywhere else, for condemning SSA. It's SSB that's the problem. SSA is like a disease (perhaps it even
is one) in that it is unchosen and not condemnation-worthy, but nonetheless "bad" in a sense.
quic wrote:If anything, it's as genetic as heterosexuality is... surely no one can argue with that.
Several comments:
1.) Not necessarily. It is possible that everyone is born with heterosexual (attraction) genes, and that environmental factors then cause SSA in some. We would thus have homosexuals (attraction) with heterosexual (attraction) genes.
2.) It is also possible that neither is genetic. In other words, we may have genes for the hormones and such, but it could at least potentially be social factors that determine the orientation of the attractions.
However, the evidence seems to indicate that both genetics and environmental factors have some degree of influence, probably weighing more heavily on the environmental side.
Also, it doesn't really matter from a moral perspective whether SSA is genetic. SSB can still be wrong, in either case.