Anti-Gay Christian Leader: Jason Collins’ Twin Brother is Straight, so Homosexuality Must be a Choice

If your identical twin is gay, what’s the likelihood you’re also gay?

If the answer is 100%, then you could argue that genetics is the primary factor in determining one’s sexuality.

It’s not, of course. The studies that have been done on identical twins are far from conclusive and the few that have been done have found that if one twin is gay, the probability that the other twin is gay ranges from a high end of just over 50% to a low end of around 20% or even lower (to be fair, all of those studies have shortcomings worth discussing). The point is that, while genes appear to play a role in one’s homosexuality, the exact nature of how and how much is still something scientists are trying to figure out.

But that fact didn’t stop Micah Clark, Executive Director of the Indiana Family Institute, from making up his own conclusion in the wake of NBA player Jason Collins coming out:

There are some things that can be learned from Jason Collin’s stunt. For example, Mr. Collins’ announcement was a surprise to his former fiancé, Carolyn Moos, who played in the Women’s NBA. It was also a surprise to Jason’s twin brother, Jarron.

The media may mention Ms. Moos, but they may not want to mention Jason’s identical twin too often. Doing so may remind people that, unlike race, there is no genetic cause or “gay gene” driving homosexual behavior. If there were, Jason’s happily married, father of three, twin brother would also be involved in homosexuality, and he’s not.

There you have it. The sample size of one proves conclusively, in Clark’s mind, that being gay is totally a choice. Because if Collins is gay, then his twin brother has to be gay as well… even if one survey suggested a 50% concordance rate at best and the actual number is likely *way* lower than that.

But who needs science when your bigotry trumps evidence?

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • tinker

    I have known several sets of twins and have yet to meet any that are EXACTLY the same. There are differences. This bigot must never have met any himself because if he did he would see that twins develop very different personalities. I would think that if there was a 100% chance that both twins would be gay or straight then they would never be able to be happy because they would ALWAYS fall for the same woman/guy.

    • Houndentenor

      True. And I’ve also never known a set of twins whose family and friends couldn’t tell apart. They also seem to almost always have very different personalities and tastes.

      • allein

        I dated an identical twin for a little while in high school, and they were purposely not identical (different haircuts, different glasses)…but even apart from that you could tell the difference. I think there is some truth to personality differences attributed to birth order, even with twins; if you had to guess which one of them was the older brother (by about 5 minutes, IIRC) you would probably guess my ex-boyfriend and you’d be right.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

    One note:

    Monozygotic twins aren’t entirely genetically identical. A few hundred unique mutations typically accumulate during fetal development when and after the embryo splits (in rare cases, monozygotic twins can even have different sexual phenotypes).

    There’s also differences in epigenetics, reflecting which genes are activated, which start changing during fetal development and continue to diverge throughout life. These come from differences in environmental influences between the twins. e.g. monozygotic twins always have different fingerprints.

    In other words, Clark doesn’t understand biology. And even if he was right and people could choose their sexual orientation, which they can’t, why would that matter?

    • Jon Peterson

      I was just coming here to point out the fingerprint thing, but you not only covered that but brought up a couple other things of which I was unaware. So thanks for that! :)

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

      You are trying to use science to explain shit, stop doing that because it makes way to much sense.

    • Shawn Gunn

      Well said

    • John

      Epigenetics? That’s devil science talk. Identical twins are IDENTICAL. It says so in the Bible!

  • Iminyourgenes

    Studies have shown that the epigenetics (methylation, histone modification, etc) of identical twins are as different as non-twin siblings. So, you might start with the same alleles, but expression could differ dramatically.

  • Rovin’ Rockhound

    Tangentially related – portraits of identical twins that show just how different they can be:

    http://twentytwowords.com/2013/04/02/portraits-of-identical-twins-side-by-side-for-comparison-14-pictures/

  • MyScienceCanBeatUpYourGod

    It is scientifically impossible for Jason Collins to be an NBA center, otherwise his twin brother would be one too!

    Moron.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

      His twin brother is a State Farm agent.

    • Gus Snarp

      While you are correct in pointing out the failure in logic, it’s not the best example to use in pointing it out, since his twin brother was an NBA center.

      • Pick Me!

        LOL, fail

  • WallofSleep

    The bigot Bryan Fischer said pretty much the same thing. Heh, just for shits and giggles, here’s an old gem:

    Gay Scientists Isolate Christian Gene

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50

  • http://www.facebook.com/StrangeCandee Candee Bell

    and….So what if it is a choice? It is my life. I’m not worshiping YOUR god. The choices in my life are mine to make NOT YOURS. If I choose to live in love and happiness without judging others for their choices then that is my right. If “god” doesn’t like it that will be between me and “god” NOT you and me. YOU are not god nor do you speak for god. If god is all powerful than it can deal with me directly until then it isn’t any of your business who my heart chooses because we are both consenting adults. I wish Christians could keep their hateful religion and god to themselves. I’m not gay but I sure might choose to be just because I can.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

      jeebus hates you. what more do you need to know?

    • Jasper

      They seem to be forgetting that something else is also a choice… being a Christian. I guess that’s not deserving of rights or anti-descrimination laws either.

      • John

        They’d probably argue that it’s not a choice, they feel Jesus in their heart, you’re the one choosing to deny him, etc. Logic has no power over them.

        • Crazy Russian

          If it’s not a choice, then it’s genetic, and identical twins will be always both of the same religion, right? The logic, it works both ways :)

          And don’t even start me on conversions!

    • Dale in Kentucky

      Gay rights activists are basing their demands for legal euality in marriage largely on the argument that since people are born gay it is unfair to deny them the same legal status as any other “ethnic” group. If being gay was a lifestyle decision, the legal basis for “equality” would be weakened.

      • Libertas

        Not exactly. Even if people are not born gay (which I strongly believe they are) that doesn’t make it a choice, and the argument as you describe it is based in the idea that homosexuality is not a choice, not they you are born a homosexual.

        Even given that, however, the argument is rooted more deeply in equal protection of the laws. It doesn’t matter if being gay is a choice or not (which, mind you, I can say with more certainty than anything else–it is not). The equal protection argument still holds.

  • Stev84

    >”involved in homosexuality”

    What a stupid phrase

    • WallofSleep

      If you’re a straight guy who occasionally watches some girl-on-girl videos, does that mean you’re “involved in homosexuality”?

      • trj

        Not only that, it also means you’re addicted to porn, influenced by demons, committing adultery, and making Jesus cry. Because, you know, he’s watching you watch porn.

  • trj

    Until Micah Clark can demonstrate why anyone should take his bigoted Bible interpretation seriously, I really don’t give a toss what exactly causes homosexuality. The Christian bigots’ sole basis for condemning homosexuality is “my Bible says so”, and let’s just say I’m not impressed by the Bible’s authority as a moral (or historical or scientific) guide.

  • mikespeir

    I don’t care if it is a choice. There’s no good reason people shouldn’t be able to make that choice.

    • LesterBallard

      Fucking A!

  • Michael

    It always amuses me when these people argue that everyone is bisexual without realising that’s what they’re saying.

    • amycas

      This is so true. I am bisexual, but I didn’t realize it for years because I was taught that being gay or straight was a choice. I just assumed everybody liked both. lol

      • Michael

        Being heterosexual is like having a blast door in your head. In a sexual situation involving a member of the same sex this door suddenly slams shut and you can only watch on the monitors as your body goes into autopilot, makes its excuses and leaves in the most efficient manner it can find without rational thought.

        Eventually, because this autopilot moment is unpleasant, you just start avoiding the kind of situations likely to trigger it.

        This is how I know being gay isn’t a choice. Something is hardwired in my brain to prevent it being possible to choose that.

  • timberwraith

    I think, in the long run, we need to move away from the model “If people’s biological makeup causes people to exist in a certain way, then people manifesting that way of being should be accorded full dignity and citizenship.”

    Speaking as a queer person, my way of being doesn’t hurt you and it’s none of your business. If you think my being queer is a justifiable reason for abusing and ostracizing me, you’re going to have a knock-down drag-out fight on your hands because I refuse to put up with your supremacist bullshit. Why I’m queer isn’t the issue. The issue is that you seem to think you can justify hurting and abusing me based upon your prejudices.

    The problem is, people who occupy places of social power/privilege think they should be automatically accorded input into how someone else leads their lives and how someone defines who they are. If that input is disregarded or rebelled against, those in positions of relative social privilege/power believe they have a right to make nonconformists pay for living their lives without respect to the wishes of the privileged majority.

    The thing is, it doesn’t matter what the majority believes regarding the origins of a particular mode of human existence. They will discriminate regardless. It certainly didn’t matter with matters of race in the US. At one time, the majority of whites thought black people were biologically inferior to whites and this justified discrimination. After this belief faded in popularity, it was replaced with the notion that blacks are culturally inferior to the rest of the populace, and thus deserving of poverty, homelessness, and other poor social outcomes. Racism started with biology as the basis for inferiority/superiority and then morphed into utilizing social/developmental justifications.

    The prejudice remains as the justifications shift.

    Do you know what conservative, religion-based arguments are now saying about queer people since biology has been established as the popular explanation behind being queer? “We live in a fallen world, steeped in sin and corruption. It is no surprise that biology reflects this corruption. Homosexuals’ sexual instincts reflect this physical corruption and as such, the homosexual must resist the evil that is manifested in their very physical makeup.” Seriously, I’ve actually encountered religious homophobes who have said stuff like this.

    So, we’ve moved from gay people being developmentally/socially inferior to gay people being biologically/physically inferior—the reverse trajectory from justifications for racism. Moral of the story: it doesn’t matter what the bigots use as their justification for hatred and discrimination. The central point of the matter, is that they seek domination over the disliked group because they are different and will do so regardless of reason, ethics, or empathy.

    • observer

      I’ve always believed a bigot’s biggest pet peeve is being labeled a “bad guy”, which maybe the motive to say homosexuality is a choice – so the bigots won’t seem as bad. Bigots just use the whole “gay gene” because it’s the closest, and most tangible, “evidence” they can think of (in their naive knowledge of biology) that homosexuality is a choice.

      • Houndentenor

        No one wants to be called a bigot, especially if it’s true.

      • Foot

        Don’t ya get it? If you’re born gay (bad to their way of thinking) then god made a mistake. they CANNOT admit that. LMFAO

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

      here, let me simplify your post:

      mythology.

      i believe in pink unicorns on the far side of the moon. other people believe in jeebus. both of us have exactly the same justification for discrimination.

      • timberwraith

        With this particular form of discrimination in this particular era, religious belief is more often the basis for discrimination. Decades ago, secular reasons were commonplace, too. Racism, for the better part of the last century has been based upon non-religious justifications… as is xenophobia, classism, ageism, ableism, prejudice against asexuals, and on, and on.

        Belief in supreme beings or some spirit force is not necessary to justify the prejudices and mistrust of a privileged majority toward those who are of lesser social power and are different. Only the fear and dislike of difference is required, coupled with the social power necessary to enforce such misgivings in punitive ways.

        Religion is but one possible tool utilized in this social pattern. There are many others. You can see this at work via the sexism manifested in secular communities, for example.

    • Randay

      I agree with you that your way of being doesn’t hurt me. When I was young and rather good looking in college, queers I knew and strangers would sometimes hit on me, but I just said I don’t swing that way. No Problemo.

      What I don’t understand is why sexual activity is so horrifying to religions and religious people(except when they are in the closet or preachers who see a nice teen-age girl in their church). Our genitals are just sense organs like our eyes or ears. We can choose what movies to watch, or what music to listen to, or whom to have sex with. I have had long term relationships and even been married, but that didn’t prevent me from getting a hard-on sometimes when I saw an attractive woman even though I wasn’t looking for a one-nighter.

  • http://www.facebook.com/gordon.reid.146 Gordon Reid

    I guess the pastor would explain male-female twins by telling us each twin chose its gender when it was a zygote. Micah Clark should spend more time learning to think and less time being an embarrassment to the Indiana Family Institute. Note: It takes special skills to be more embarrassing than the Indiana Family Institute.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    Further evidence of the failure of science education in this country. Proper teaching of evolution would include the basics of twin studies, and what the can and cannot show.

    (and of course, as others have said, more importantly who the fuck cares how much of anything is a choice if it doesn’t affect anyone else!)

  • The Captain

    So if one twin is gay, and the other straight how does Clark know that it’s not hetrosexuality that is the choice?

    • Sids

      I expect he’d have no problem with saying heterosexuality is a choice too. But he would insist that it is the choice that is endorsed by his god.

  • http://twitter.com/the_final_pope Ben Roy

    I didn’t care if homosexuality was a choice or not before Jason Collins came out and I don’t care now. What I do care about is bigoted idiots like Micah Clark spreading nonsense and junk science around like it’s fact.
    Even if homosexuality were a choice, who the hell cares! I have friends who are in BDSM, not my cup of tea, but so bloody what, it’s their choice. What consenting adults do is their business, not the business of bible thumping holy-rollers who have their head’s shoved so far up their own asses they can taste what they had for breakfast.

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    Word-renowned geneticist and psychologist Micah Clark, Executive Director of the prestigious Indiana Family Institute recently called a press conference where he said he could finally prove that he knows his ass from a hole in the ground. He claimed to have found a hole in the ground, and he was quoted by several newspapers, CNN, CBS, and FoxNews as saying “That hole in the ground is definitely not my ass.” When asked by reporters to show them the hole in the ground to which he was referring, he said that he had misplaced it. When asked if he could produce his own ass, he said, “No comment,” and abruptly ended the press conference.

    • Carmelita Spats

      Now that was funny!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Phil-Bellerive/1118986200 Phil Bellerive

      Here are his credentials, directly from his bio page:

      “In 1989 Micah Clark graduated from Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, Missouri with a bachelor’s degree in Political Science.”

      ’nuff said.

    • Just Wondering?

      Does that mean Richard Wade will no longer be humping the hole in the ground?

  • Houndentenor

    We do not know why some people are gay or bisexual. Claims that we do are not based on any scientific studies. It is possible, and this is what I suspect, that it is a combination of factors. I have on many occasions looked around at a group of gay men and thought, “we did not all get here the same way, but here we all are.” I have known identical twins where one identified as gay and the other as straight. Neither choice that sexual orientation, but clearly there is some factor besides a gene involved.

    • timberwraith

      Houndentenor, I’ve witnessed my own attractions shift between sexes/genders over my lifetime. I’m also fairly aware of how my own social/emotional experiences influenced those shifts in attraction. Naturally, I agree that how different people reach a particular common set of attractions can differ greatly.

      And, of course, why does the how and why matter? I don’t choose to like broccoli and dislike watercress. That’s just how my culinary tastes work. Did I have a series of pleasant experiences associated with broccoli and ate some contaminated watercress when I was a kid? Do I have some gene that codes for liking one and disliking the other?

      And what if I decide that I’m going to explore the culinary wonders of watercress and choose to eat it with the goal of overcoming my aversion? And if I actually wind up thinking watercress is utterly delicious and start to crave it?

      Why does it matter?

      Unless the majority thinks broccoli eating is the proper, ethical norm and eating watercress is disgusting, socially suspect, and inferior… then, it suddenly matters. It matters just because the majority thinks it should have a say in dictating my life and my choices.

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        There is a genetic component to one’s preference for broccoli.

        Not relevant, just interesting factoid.

        • timberwraith

          I’ve discovered that if I drown broccoli in cheese sauce when I prepare it, I can get nearly anyone to eat it. ;-)

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

            I wouldn’t eat it. But that is just a peculiarity of my own biochemistry.

      • Houndentenor

        The Flying Spaghetti monster sex broccoli eating is an abomination! :-)

        We’ve only recently starting studying human sexuality at all. I don’t think we’re anywhere near understanding something so complex and individual. Besides, if you aren’t hurting anyone else, why is it anyone’s business?

        And I’ll say this again. I think what’s really going on with social conservatives is that they are trying to suppress their own desires. it’s projection. Listen to how obsessed some of them are with other people’s sexual activities. They must spend hours looking at kinky porn and other erotica. They LIKE it, but they feel they shouldn’t so they try to suppress it in others. It doesn’t work which is why so many of them keep getting caught with prostitutes or in other compromising situations.

  • LesterBallard

    Did shitstain Bryan Fischer beat him to this one?

  • http://www.facebook.com/matt.norris.777 Matt Norris

    I think the most condensending part of this is how he calls Collins coming out a “stunt,” like he’s some circus clown.

    • timberwraith

      This is completely unrelated, but I have to say it as a Muppet’s fan: you’re avatar is pretty awesome.

  • upsidedawn

    Anecdotal story, but I knew from my teens that there were differences between identical twins. I was out on a date, and I happened to meet my date’s identical twin brother for the first time. I realized immediately that I was more attracted to my date’s twin. Damn, I was on a date with the wrong twin!

  • cipher

    There you have it. The sample size of one proves conclusively, in Clark’s mind, that being gay is totally a choice.

    They really do not get how science works.

  • John_in_Vegas

    The only people who think being gay is a choice are also the only ones who think they chose to be straight. Did anyone ask Micah Clark if he had an option?

  • Nick

    Sexuality is not based on what you want, it’s what you prefer, whatever floats your boat. It’s not really a choice, it’s what you prefer. If one twin likes Android the other one cannot like iPhones?

    • Stev84

      Well, the word “prefer” kinda implies that you like both. As in “I like chocolate and vanilla ice cream, but I prefer chocolate.” For people who are on the extreme ends on the spectrum it’s not a preference in that sense.

    • Baby_Raptor

      “Prefer” still implies choice. I like both chocolate chip cookies and double fudge cookies, but would choose (prefer) double fudge over chocolate chip if both were an option.

      Orientation isn’t like that. There’s no choice at all involved.

      • Sids

        Actually, I think thats wrong. There seem to be two points of determination here which you are conflating. Prefer and choose are not synonymous. The first relates to how you feel about the options, the other relates to which of those you act more favourably towards.

        In the example you used the preferrence isn’t really a choice. (You either like the taste of double fudge (DF) over chocolate chip (CC) or you don’t). The choice comes in with which one you would choose to eat.

        This seems to be analogous with homosexuality. There is indeed a choice on what the person chooses to act on. A homosexual person could (and I’m sure we could both list examples) have sex with someone of the opposite gender. The point where there is no choice is on what they prefer.

        Disclaimer: Just to be clear, it is of course is silly to unnecessarilly force them to only take the unpreferred option. And I used your example of DF and CC, but I don’t mean to imply that the preference is a trivial one where both options are great. It may well be more analogous to choosing something great eg, DF and something one would hate eg, faeces.

  • http://twitter.com/WoodwindsRock Emma

    Why in the world are they so quick to jump to claim “it’s a choice”? There’s PLENTY of room in between “It’s 100% genetic” and “It’s a choice”. In fact, in no way, shape, or form does it being environmental (which is really the opposite of it being genetic NOT it being a choice) ever mean it’s a choice. The idea that it’s a choice is complete and utter nonsense.

    I’m so sick of seeing that stupid claim. And like anybody claiming there’s such a thing as “the gay agenda”, whoever says it automatically loses any credit in my eyes.

  • Thalfon

    Aside from the fact that the sample size doesn’t remotely show whether genetics are involved as mentioned by Hemant, and that even if homosexuality were a choice there would still be nothing wrong with it, as mentioned by Candee in the comments, this response by Clark completely ignores the fact that there may be factors other than genetics which preclude something from being a choice.

  • Lori F – MN

    Bwaa ha ha!
    What. An. Idiot.

  • luckye

    The largest twin study ever done on the subject look at over 3000 twin pairs and found that only 11% of gay identical twins had gay twin siblings….given that their DNA is identical this means that at the very MOST, genetics can only contribute a tiny influence on homosexuality. This was done in Sweden, then another study out of Finland showed the same results.

    See http://www.nooneisborngay.com Sorry. It’s a behavior, not a choice, but something that slowly develops over time….like alcoholism or drug addiction – no one choses those either, but they happen over time, one small decision at a time.

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      From that site:

      If someone is in fact “born that way” (homosexual) they are claiming to have a gene or combination of genes that create homosexual attractions in them.

      No, they are not. Being ‘born that way’ does not mean genetics necessarily.

      You might be able to fake some credibility if you included “love of Chopin” with your examples of things that slowly develop over time.

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        In contrast: the number of identical twin pairs who share identical alcoholic behaviors are 50%! Nearly five times the genetic influence!

        No mention of twins raised in the same vs. different environments?

        That’s not science. That’s hackery. Do you happen to have a link to this Swedish study?

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          As for what environmental factors might be at play, the authors point out that these might not be entirely social but could also be biological. For example, some studies have suggested that exposure to prenatal hormones or even the mother’s immune system could influence the sexual development of a fetus.

          http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/06/30-01.html

        • Mariève Lapierre

          Seems to be this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986

          Interestingly, the genetic effects turn out to be much higher than 15%, even if they used both monozygotic and heterozygotic same-sex twins.

      • Random_acct

        So please do enlighten us if “born that way” does not mean “genetics necessarily”, just what does it mean?

        Yikes.

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson
        • Dorfl

          Non-genetic ways of being born with some particular trait could be if the trait is affected by differences in uterine environment or just the effects of random chance in fetal development. Fingerprints are a good example – even ‘identical’ twins have somewhat different fingerprints.

        • Beutelratti

          Yikes, here you are already using the internet and yet you still can’t use it to properly educate yourself… I pity you.

          • Random_acct

            Thanks for not answering the question. I have to say that I’m not surprised though.

            • Beutelratti

              Again, your questions have been answered already and you could easily answer them yourself if you just cared enough to use the internet. I’m not surprised though. The ignorance is strong in you.

              • Random_acct

                No. They haven’t Ben answered. How about a “copy and paste” if you think they have?

                • baal

                  Google “twin study”. Read some science. it’ll be good for you random_acct_troll.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

                  Or you could just go and actually read my initial comment on this thread.

        • RobMcCune

          Simple, it means that people have traits not created by genes. Development, hormones, epigenetics, etc. are also responsible for features in your body and brain.The idea that everything is either a choice or determined by genetics is a false dichotomy.

    • Charles Honeycutt

      Your being ignorant of epigenetics – despite the fact that it was discussed here quite a bit before you ever posted – is not an argument.

      That you compare it to addictions only further displays your ignorance of basic language and concepts.

      • Crazy Russian

        That’s intentional ignorance. Being presented with information and pretending no one has said anything.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

      You are wrong, and also are propagating serious misunderstandings about genetics. See my earlier post, and the material and references given at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin#Monozygotic_.28.22identical.22.29_twins

    • Baby_Raptor

      Okay, accepting your opinion at face value (even though you’re horribly miseducated at best, or at worst you picked your desired outcome and tailored your “evidence” towards it,) could you explain to me how I “chose” to be Bisexual?

      I had no idea of the concept of homosexuality when I realized I liked girls. I had never heard the word, or the idea at all. And I was surrounded by hetero-normative people, raised in a religious home that was not at all open to quote-unquote deviancy.

      So explain to me how, despite not even knowing it was a thing, I managed to make decisions that led me to “developing the behavior” of liking both sexes.

      Or you could actually go educate yourself on genetics, and the other things that science has proven (without bias) factor into orientation, and then come back and apologize for your stupidity and your offensive comparisons.

    • Random_acct

      A behavior is a result of a choice. And yes, it can certainly develop over time by a series of choices that result in a behavior that becomes engrained as habit.

      It’s also called sin.

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        Sin is by definition something prohibited by religious doctrine. If one does not adhere to a particular religious doctrine, then whether or not that doctrine prohibits something is immaterial.

        So feel free to not have sex with someone who has the same sex chromosomes as you, or get divorced if your religious beliefs prohibit it. But unless you want someone else making up religiously based rules for you to follow, don’t expect anyone else to care.

        • Random_acct

          It funny how you all think this argument is compelling. It isn’t. We all have a religion. Also, you better be careful what you wish for if you want to throw Christian values out of the public square. The ending will indeed be very bad for you.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            It’s funny that you think your argument is at all compelling. It isn’t.

            We all have a religion.

            For certain definitions of religion.

            if you want to throw Christian values out of the public square

            By ‘public square’ you mean (since ‘We all have religion’) forcing your religious views on everyone else? No, sorry, I’m a fan of the both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. I’m not going to fast during the day for a month, and I’m not going to make sure I don’t work in the garden on some particular day. And I’m not going to lobby for divorce to be outlawed..

            You’re perfectly free to think whatever you want of my ending. Your fantasies don’t bother me in the slightest. It’s the reality you want to enforce on others that’s the problem.

            • Random_acct

              If your religion condemns murder, are you “forcing” that condemnation on others by supporting laws against murder? Your argument is absurd…and I’ve heard it many, many times before.

              • indorri

                That reply is absurd and I have heard it argued many times as well. We can argue non-religious, universal applicability for prohibitions on murder. The point is that religious reasons aren’t good reasons. Whether something is a good idea or not, religion is only useful within the context of other followers of the religion, not those who follow different religions or no religion.

                • Random_acct

                  “Whether something is a good idea or not, religion is only useful within the context of other followers of the religion, not those who follow different religions or no religion.”

                  I hope you understand how illogical that sounds. If you don’t, we have big problems we need to work with you on logic and reason.

                • indorri

                  I wouldn’t say it if it were illogical. I will say it again.

                  Religion is not a valid justification for morality. It is a description, a set of doctrines agreed upon by various people based on certain, occasionally disparate motivations.

                  Explain to me how a definition is illogical.

                • Random_acct

                  My point is that “religion” (as narrowly defined by you in this case) is also “useful” to others not part of that particular “religion” to the extent it helps a society function well.

                  Christianity does make for very good citizens, as God established government as an institution (just as He established marriage and defined it as well).

                  As for your point about “a set of doctrine agreed upon by various people”, I don’t think you understand Christianity. The fundamental beliefs/doctrines were established by God, not mere mortals.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

                  Re. the “but religion is useful” line: http://www.alternet.org/story/151833/the_santa_delusion%3A_why_%27religion_is_useful%27_is_a_terrible_argument_for_religion

                  “God established government as an institution (just as He established marriage and defined it as well)”

                  “The fundamental beliefs/doctrines were established by God, not mere mortals.”

                  Citation needed. And no, the Bible is not a citation.

                • indorri

                  And my point was that the extent to which it is useful is irrelevant to those outside the religion. If it helps society function well, we can indicate how it helps society function well and discuss it on those merits.

              • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                There are secular reasons to prohibit murder and theft.

                Next!

                • Random_acct

                  Such as…?

                • Baby_Raptor

                  Are you seriously trying to claim that the only reasons people have to be good, decent people are religious ones? Because that’s what your words are implying.

                  And if that’s what you honestly think, I pity you. I pity the hell out of you.

                  Adults don’t need someone looking over their shoulder with threats and punishment to be decent people. Children do. And anyone who thinks that the only reason people would follow laws and generally not be a dick is because a religion is making them has the mentality of a 3 year old.

                • Random_acct

                  I simply gave you an example of a person who was a notorious murderer who didn’t have any qualms about the eternal consequences of killing millions of innocents. And why should he? That world is all about survival of the fittest.

                  You didn’t like my example. Fine. But it doesn’t make the point any less valid.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

                  They are actions that infringe on the rights and welfare of others.

                • Random_acct

                  Hello, I don’t care if my actions infringe on the supposed “rights” of others. And why should I? I make the rules and I am God.

                  Sincerely,
                  Joseph Stalin

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

                  Classic cliched derailing tactic #2. Brief answer: we judge actions by their likely outcome. Stalin ordered the killings of millions. That’s incredibly wrong.

                • Spuddie

                  So the only reason you don’t commit murder and theft is because you fear divine punishment?

                  You are one seriously sick puppy. Get help. Take medication. You are really just one step away from serial killer.

                • Random_acct

                  You are very entertaining today.

                  You also have a difficult time understanding basic points.

                • amycas

                  You honestly can’t think of any reason not the murder or steal other then “god said not to do it”?

              • Beutelratti

                The Bible is very much pro-murder when it fits the writers’ agenda. Have you read the book lately?

                When was the last time you killed a homosexual?

                • Random_acct

                  No answer to my question, eh?

                • Beutelratti

                  Your question has been answered already by others. How about you answer our questions now, eh?

                • RobMcCune

                  Like all christians you can’t understand the world in any thing but orders.

                • Spuddie

                  You are illiterate as well as a sociopath? People already answered the questions. You just didn’t bother to read it.

          • Baby_Raptor

            It *is* compelling. You know why? It’s in the Constitution. You know, the part where every citizen is granted freedom of religion?

            And guess what? Freedom of religion means freedom *from* it. Not everyone has a religion. I don’t know where you got that idea, unless you’re choosing to believe the old lie that Atheists worship Satan or science or some shit.

            Further, America would be vastly improved if we could throw Christianity out of it. Then everyone would be free to live their own lives according to their own views. The Christers are *very* against that, as you prove with this little rant right here.

            And lastly, Christianity doesn’t have a single thing in it that didn’t exist before the religion was a thing. Every value you claim is Christian was practiced by other groups long before some dude named Jesus appeared. Every bit of his story was stolen from other myths. So claiming that values are inherently Christian is a bald-faced lie. And I hear your god hates those.

            • Random_acct

              Everyone has a religion. You just don’t recognize that and want to somehow gain a perceived advantage in this discussion.

              Be careful what you wish for with regard to throwing out Christianity.

              Of course, perhaps you can cite an example of a thriving country in history that was, say, 79% atheist.

              We saw how that model worked in the USSR.

              • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

                Sweden. Denmark. Norway. Japan. Seriously, look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country

              • RobMcCune

                Everyone has a religion. You just don’t recognize that and want to somehow gain a perceived advantage in this discussion.

                Actually it’s because me, and others have a sensible definition or the word religion. You don’t because christianity has warped your thinking into perceiving anything not christian as your enemy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

            You are now coming close to making religiously-themed threats of violence. Don’t do that.

            “We all have a religion”

            Incorrect.

          • Beutelratti

            Because it was also bad that we decided to no longer stone people to death although that’s clearly god’s choice?

          • Spuddie

            Only a complete sociopath thinks morality comes from religious concepts. If people are not led by the nose on a subject, they can’t come up with their own conclusions as to how to treat one another?

            No. That sounds like what someone would say if they have deep issues with basic human relations. Or someone trying to justify immoral behavior such as bigotry and discrimination by claiming it is endorsed by their religion, therefore moral. No one with an actual sense of morality could consider such things. Morality does not equal self-interest. Doing what you are told out of fear of divine retribution is not moral behavior.

            Of course it would be really fun if people who use terms like “Christian values” would be willing to define what they are in a non-self-referential way or describe what is so uniquely Christian about them.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

        Sexual orientation is not a habit. And haven’t you been paying attention to what others have already explained here?

        Also: there is no such thing as sin.

        • Random_acct

          It’s a sin. Along with a number of other sins. And yes, sin can be a habit.

          • Baby_Raptor

            Nobody here cares what your personal religious views consider a sin. The only person that matters to or has any affect on is you. Stop saying it like has some sort of weight.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

            “It’s a sin”

            Baby_Raptor has got the right response to that line.

          • amycas

            Being a bigoted fuckwad can be a habit too. Seems you haven’t broken yourself of that one.

          • Matt D

            In the end, there are many sins you ignore completely over this one, and telling others gay is “sinful” is nothing more than hypocrisy from slobs who can’t stand being human in the first place.

            • Random_acct

              What part of “It’s a sin. Along with a number of other sins. And yes, sin can be a habit.” do I have to explain further to you?

              • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

                The part where the simple act of you saying “X is a sin” should figure in anyone else’s opinions.

                • Random_acct

                  Like I stated previously, we all pay the social costs of sin. So your make-believe world sounds so nice and idyllic, but the real world is far more complex and I have a responsibility to remind all of us of this.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

                  That is not an answer to why anyone should care about your saying something is a sin.

                • Random_acct

                  My point is that we don’t live in a vacuum. Sin affects all of us, and in many ways it shows itself in huge social costs.

                  So you may not care what I say, but the facts still remain about social costs…

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

                  Your saying “X is a sin” is irrelevant. Your claiming “X has a social cost” could be. But in the case of sexual orientation, it doesn’t, while suppressing people’s expression of their sexual orientation very definitely does. Now please go away.

                • Random_acct

                  The scientific evidence belies your assertion.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

                  You are wrong and do not understand sociology or science, as has been repeatedly explained in many places, including here and in linked articles. Since you seem in need of basic information, you should go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality or someplace similar and actually learn.

                • Random_acct
                • Random_acct

                  …and this…

                  http://www.narth.com/docs/netherlands.html

                  Not that it matters to you though. Let’s at least be honest.

      • RobMcCune

        Behavior is called sin, wow, what crazy sect are you a part of?

        • Random_acct

          Rob…you are trying too hard.

      • Spuddie

        So when you get called out on your bullshit study you resort to bullshit religious arguments. What behavior constitutes a sin depends on your beliefs.

        Whereas you might not find bigotry sinful, everyone else here would. =)

    • indorri

      Tell me what I have done, at age 28, that has made me gay.

    • Christopher Carr

      Monozygotic twins do not develop identically and are not in an identical environment in the womb. There are even differences in the epigenetic profiles of identical twins at birth.

    • amycas

      Can you tell us when you “chose” to be heterosexual then?

  • Miss_Beara

    “Involved in homosexuality”? Can we say that he (Clark) is involved in heterosexuality and talking to himself?

    I knew two brothers in grade school who both turned out to be gay. Maybe I should say if a male has a brother and is gay so he must be gay too. TA DA see I can do it to anti gay christian leader.

  • Kimpatsu

    I agree with the actor Simon Pegg: If being gay is a choice, I would choose to be gay every second Friday, and whenever I went clothes shopping.

  • Random_acct
    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

      Which is entirely irrelevant to everything here.

      • Random_acct

        Thus the use of “meanwhile” prior to the link.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

          Which does exactly nothing to make your posting it here any less of a transparent attempt at derailing. And I will not discuss this further.

          • Random_acct

            It was interesting and relevant in the sense that he was apparently a homosexual.

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              But did he like broccoli?

              • Random_acct

                Not sure…probably dead broccoli if so.

            • GCT

              Oh great, someone who’s read the Pink Swastika where the author just decides that gays are the reason for the holocaust and then simply claims all the Nazis were gay. Nevermind the fact that the Nazis killed gays for being gay.

              Godwin. You lose. Go home troll.

              • Random_acct

                Why are you so sensitive about my link?

    • indorri

      Scott Lively, is that you?

    • indorri

      Incidentally, the comments section of that rag is filthy. What a detestable, perverted bunch of people.

    • Baby_Raptor

      You know what else Hitler was? He was a Christian. He claimed that God told him to murder everyone that didn’t toe his line. And the Nazis had God’s name on their uniforms.

      He openly talked about how the Holocaust was God’s will.

      So enjoy being tarred with that brush. And keep worshiping the God that did nothing while millions were slaughtered in his name!

      • Random_acct

        No he wasn’t.

        Look at his writings if you care to know the facts.

        • Stev84

          You mean the writings where he claims to act partly out of religious beliefs, praises the virtues of Christian education and values for the country and condemns atheism?

          • Random_acct

            Keep trying. Your sources are completely wrong.

    • amycas

      And? Stalin, Genghis Khan and (I’m assuming) Joshua from the Bible (you know, the guy who ordered the Israelite armies to commit multiple genocides) were all straight. You know what else? Hitler was white and had a mustache. We shouldn’t let white people grow mustaches because Hitler!!!

      You are simply cementing the fact that you are indeed a bigoted fuckwad.

  • amycas

    I don’t really care whether or not it’s a choice. What religion you practice is a choice and yet we’re not allowed to discriminate based on religion.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    20% of mono-zygotic twins differ in hand preference (left vs. right handed)

    http://multiples.about.com/cs/funfacts/a/aatwinhand.htm

    Or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755095/ if I’m scanning properly is saying that genetics account for about 25% of heritable handedness.

    So obviously being left handed is a choice. I mean, there’s some genetics or something involved, but since one twin can be right handed, obviously the other one could be, right? So we should train kids to be right handed, for their own good.

    I wonder which hand trolls prefer?

  • Random_acct

    Greetings Comrades!

    I don’t care if my actions infringe on the supposed “rights” of others. And why should I? I make the rules and I am God.

    With Warmest Regards,
    Joseph Stalin (et al)

    • RobMcCune

      Of course you don’t care if you infringe on the rights of others, you’re a christian.

      • Random_acct

        You got “whooshed”.

  • rgcustomer

    I don’t think we know for certain that Jason and Jarron are identical twins.

    A brief Google search told me with certainty that:
    * they ARE identical
    * they are NOT identical
    * we DON’T KNOW because nobody did the test

    So yay.

  • 1coachretired1

    It is fairly obvious why homosexuals want to assert that homosexuality is genetic. If they are programmed to behave in a certain way then homosexuality becomes less of a behavior and more of a status. This helps advance efforts to include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws, which are meant to give homosexuals equal power in relation to legitimate civil rights causes based upon immutable physical characteristics.

    The only problem with the genetic argument is that it lacks supporting evidence. There is no more evidence for a gay gene than there is for Santa Claus or for legitimate feminist scholarship. The best the activist can do is to argue circumstantially that no one would choose a lifestyle that guarantees being subjected to discrimination. The argument is as silly as saying there must be an interracial dating gene because no one would choose to be subjected to discrimination for dating someone of another race.

    The homosexual rights movement continues to redefine homophobia in order to reduce any semblance of criticism directed toward the homosexual agenda. Isn’t this similar to what we have seen in the struggle for racial equality in America?

    At first, the civil rights movement was about stopping lynching and racial segregation. After redefining racism (to include any disagreement with black leaders whatsoever) the movement has become little more than a mechanism used to suppress political speech. Racism went from being a social problem to being a political weapon. Redefining homophobia now serves the same function for the homosexual activist that redefining racism served for the civil rights activist.

    • GCT

      It’s fairly obvious that you’re talking out of your ass. It’s also fairly obvious that you have pretty much zero knowledge in this except what your pastor told you. You could try reading some of the other comments above and educate yourself (there’s links and everything) but I suppose that would be too hard and might make you rethink your bigotry. (Bigotry I might mention against gays, women, people of color, and Santa Claus for some strange reason.)

      • 1coachretired1

        You gay lovers always throw the bigotry,hate, and homophobic card!
        Some day -would you make a common sense attempt to rebut those of us who KNOW that homosexuals-claiming equal rights with those BORN of race, gender and ethnicity-can only point to the acquired and chosen BEHAVIOR of their orientation (of which they have brainwashed the masses) to include their degeneracy on the many anti-discrimination law lists!

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          Shouting doesn’t change how wrong you are. It just makes you wrong louder.

          • 1coachretired1

            A word in caps is to make a stronger point! If you have truth and facts to prove that homosexuality is innate and cannot be controlled then cite them!
            I have followed the gay agenda for many years and will rebut and reply to your every weak comment!
            Never mind all of your symbolism over substance diatribes!

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

              You continue to assert things that have been refuted a thousand times. This makes you either ignorant, a liar, or someone with a toxic sense of humor. Please go read the previous comments and the references given in them.

              You are also a sexist and a racist as well as a homophobe. None of those are defensible attitudes. Please re-think them.

              • 1coachretired1

                Why doesn’t anyone ever ask about how a person becomes gay? Too many just assume that this is an uncontrollable orientation that has become equal to one’s race,ethnicity or gender (born with,innate and unchangeable)!
                You that accept this false idea have been brainwashed by homosexuals who have carefully and very quietly invaded our legal system by including the BEHAVIOR (sexual orientation) as a characterization that must be added

                on to every “do not discriminate” law of every stripe!

                There is no simple, single CAUSE for sexual orientation that has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic,hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors

                and the early uterine environment.

                Rooted in biology or not, there is a difference between gender, ethnicity, and “orientation.” Orientation consists primarily of—is lived out through—desire. And the fact that it involves desire means it is subject to moral evaluation in a way that “being male” or “being black” are not.

                Here is what’s often missed: neither the fact of the desire, nor its possible biological basis, gives it moral legitimacy.

                There are several assumptions behind the idea that a person with same-sex attraction might say “I am a homosexual” in the same way someone might say “I am a male” or “I am black.”

                First, one assumes that homosexual desires are rooted in biology and therefore a natural part of being human. Second, one assumes that our natural desires are basically good, so long as they don’t hurt others.

                Third, one assumes that fulfilling such basic and good desires are part of being fully human.

                All the talk about “equality” depends upon these foundational assumptions about what it means to be human.

                Shouldn’t our moral calculations for human beings involve something more than assent to the biochemistry of desire? We are more than animals. We are souls and bodies.

                We are created in God’s image. To legitimize homosexual desire simply because it’s natural or biological, ironically, is to treat a person as less than human.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

                  “We are created in God’s image. To legitimize homosexual desire simply because it’s natural or biological, ironically, is to treat a person as less than human.”

                  No.

                  We are a species of ape that split off from a common ancestral population with the chimpanzees five million years ago. There was no god involved in that process.

                  It happens that some humans are heterosexual, some humans are homosexual, and some humans have other sexual orientations. This is entirely natural and not subject to choice or “moral evaluation”, as has been explained to you repeatedly.

                  And, again, even sexual orientation were a choice – which it is not – why would that matter?

                  It is your denying the value of a large group of people that really treats people as less than human.

                  Also, you apparently are unaware of the extent to which gender and ethnicity are social constructs. Please go and learn about that.

            • RobMcCune

              A word in caps is to make a stronger point!

              Because that’s what trumps saying something inteligent.

              • 1coachretired1

                What is homosexuality? Either the behavior is sexual immorality or there is no such thing as sexual immorality! Homosexual behavior, like adultery, fornication,incest and bestiality is classified as sexual immorality!
                Dispite fairly sucessful attempts by self-described “gay” activists to equate behaviorally driven “gayness” to immutable aand neutrally defined qualities such as race and gender, the reality is that being “gay” has nothing to do with what someopne IS, and has everything to do with what someone DOES!
                It is about feelings and behaviors. Behaviors that every world religion,thousands of years of history, and uncompromising human biology have universally rejected as both immoral and destructive!
                If the homosexual lifestyle is just another “sexual orientation” then what possible justification can there be for opposing other orientations such as fornication,adultery,polygamy,incest, pedophelia or bestiality?
                If one is immoral-then all are immoral!

                • RobMcCune

                  If one is immoral-then all are immoral!

                  Why?

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

                  “If one is immoral-then all are immoral!”

                  No. The basic sexual ethic is “safe, sane, and consensual”. Given those constraints, go do whatever you want.

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              The simple fact is, I never got the chance to choose to be gay. Ergo, at least one human being on this planet didn’t get a choice in the matter. Even if you claim that some people simply don’t have the option and some do, then some people are born with the option of choosing to be gay, and at least one human (me) is not.

              If you claim that I really do have the option to be gay, then I can only presume that you’re gay or bisexual and just not having sex with the same sex, and projecting your own experience onto me.

              QED.

              That’s your last freebie, because I’m tired of the current troll tactic of whining about how nobody will answer anything, and completely ignoring any points anyone else makes. In fact, I’m going to prove I’m clairvoyant and predict that you’ll claim that nobody has addressed your question. All the while ignoring mine about “what business is it of yours anyways”.

        • Random_acct

          It’s always easiest to resort to name-calling when your arguments are weak or without merit.

          But they knew that already…

    • RobMcCune

      It is fairly obvious why homosexuals want to assert that homosexuality is genetic.

      Who asserts that? Seriously, who has tried to argue that homosexuality is a genetic trait? This is simply something you’re asserting to try to cook up a point of some kind that has little to no basis in reality.

      The only problem with the genetic argument is that it lacks supporting evidence. There is no more evidence for a gay gene than there is for Santa Claus or for legitimate feminist scholarship.

      Not only that it lacks actual supporters and advocates. Most of thepeople who make a big deal about genetics are christians who want to exploit ignorance of biology to attack a position very few people actually have. Not all immutable, biological traits are coded in genes, let alone a single gene.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

        The twin studies say that there is likely a genetic component to sexual orientation, but if so it is not the only contributing factor (epigenetics and prenatal environment are also documented factors). And whatever genetic component there is is subtle and very multifactorial – no one with even a little understanding of biology would say that there is “a gay gene”.

        And, again, even if sexual orientation were a choice – which it isn’t – so what?

        • Random_acct

          Well…some are born with a horrendous temper too. Call it an “anger gene” if you’d like.

          However, that does not make it acceptable to act out that temper on others when they get older.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

            Again, you do not understand biology, because saying there was “an anger gene” would make remarkably little sense. And you add another to your count of irrelevancies.

          • GCT

            Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this is true. Is the person receiving the brunt of your anger a consenting adult? No? Then, the situations are not analogous. Go away troll.

      • 1coachretired1

        Factors of Homosexual Causation:
        As a boy Dennis Jernigan needed more affection and affirmation from his father than he received. There were two important elements contributing to this deficiency. The first was that the Jernigan family was not an affectionate family. Family member relationships were more surface than emotionally binding. The second element was that Dennis Jernigan was a sensitive child, more so than his brothers, and his need for affection was probably greater than his brothers. This in turn would have caused his perception of the father/son relationship to be different than his brothers; leading him to believe that he was not loved and that he was a worthless child.
        The lack of relationship between Dennis Jernigan and his father created the unfulfilled desire to be loved and wanted by his father. He did not bond emotionally with his brothers either. His musical interests also led to him being called a “sissy” at an early age. All these elements combined to make Dennis Jernigan believe that he was different than other boys, yet he longed to identify with and be accepted into the male world. This is probably the basis of his early same-sex attractions.
        Motivations to Change:
        The more Dennis Jernigan ventured into and identified with the gay life the more miserable he became. Those are his words. Dennis Jernigan was looking for affection and affirmation that conveyed the feeling he was of worth and wanted. One facet of the male homosexual world offers sex as a substitute form of affirmation and worth. It is a fleeting form of affirmation and often degrading. This appears to be what Dennis Jernigan experienced and it is not rocket science to understand how his homosexual experiences left him feeling more miserable.
        Dennis Jernigan was also a follower of Christ and was taught that homosexual behavior was sin. Yet he did not know how to become a heterosexual man of God. He hid his homosexual feelings and kept his homosexual life secret. He realized his homosexual behavior made him more miserable and at the time in his life when he turned away from homosexuality he was looking for truth about life and sexuality.

        • 1coachretired1

          Process of Change:
          Dennis Jernigan’s journey out of same-sex desires and into a fulfilling heterosexual marriage began at a Christian concert. Dennis lifted the burden of his homosexuality up to God at that concert. He described that experience this way, “as I lifted my hands, God became more real to me than I had ever imagined! I realized that Jesus had lifted His hands for me – spreading them upon the Cross. I knew that he was right beside me, willing to walk with me. I could be honest with Him.”
          Several things happened in that life-changing experience. Whether he realized it or not Dennis not only lifted up the burden of his homosexuality to God, he lifted up the rejection and wounds at the basis of his same-sex attractions. When he felt he could be honest with Jesus, it meant he could have the intimate relationship he desired with someone who felt he was so valuable that he willingly died for his sins. This new relationship began to heal the deep wound at the basis of Dennis’ homosexuality.
          The more a Christian has an intimate relationship with Jesus, the stronger they become in their faith and the more Christ-like they should become in their lives. As Dennis depended on Jesus for intimacy and direction in his life the more he changed. Dennis was also fortunate to have other men come into his life and love him unconditionally as he sought complete healing.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch
          • GCT

            If you’re going to copy and paste something from the internet, it’s customary to cite it.

        • RobMcCune

          Christian slash fiction is weird.

          • 1coachretired1

            While it is true that there is no NT record of where Jesus explicitly stated that homosexuality is wrong, He did in fact condemn the behavior. A careful study of the Bible will bear this out. Please read the following Bible passages and then consider the questions which follow:

            1. And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

            Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality:

            What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23)

            Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11)

            God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)

            • RobMcCune

              He’s clearly on autopilot, posting comments without awareness or thought. Well, more so than normal anyway.

            • Random_acct

              Don’t forget that Ephesians 6 also makes specific instructions on dads and moms. In other words, not the slightest hint or suggestion of anything other than male/female marriage in the family structure.

            • GCT

              Why should I care what your Bible says?

    • Random_acct

      Very good points.

      Clearly, if “science” can somehow “prove” that there is a “gay gene”, then the argument is: they can’t help it anymore than I can help that I’m black, so we need to support another minority constituency to support them and firmly squelch out all objections to their “lifestyle”…even if that will violate freedom of religion.

      It’s coming folks…

      …..and be careful what you wish for.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

        You have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. What you don’t have is unrestricted freedom of action or freedom from being challenged when you say outrageously wrong and offensive things.

        And no, 1coachretired1′s nonsense isn’t “very good points” – it is nonsense that has been refuted a thousand times before.

  • NewDawn2006

    They have never had a true understanding of science to begin with… They just think they do. The sheer idiocy of that statement really shouldn’t shock us,

  • trutherator

    If the psychology and the physiology contradict each other, which one is more likely out of whack?

  • Sam

    My twin was born a girl so my sex must be choice too.

  • Sam

    My twin was born a girl so my sex must be choice too.

  • Sup

    So what if it is a choice? What’s wrong about choosing a certain lifestyle?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X