to ask for help in 'winning' FB debate on homosexuality

[manicinsomniac]

I know, I know, FB interaction should never be serious. But this isn't a bunfight I promise, it's an incredibly civil and highly intelligent sounding (far too intelligent for me - hence the request for help!) debate!

The basic premise is, I suppose, 'is homosexuality a sin?'. I have written several long responses and one of them is based on the nature-nurture thing. I have said that people are born gay or straight therefore were created that way therefore it can't be a sin.

In response somebody has posted this:
dailycaller.com/2014/03/19/nobody-is-born-that-way-gay-historians-say/2/?onswipe_redirect=no&oswrr=1
Instinctively I feel it must be wrong but having read it twice, I'm wondering if I've been beaten (on that particular point!) and that we actually are not born with a sexuality.

If I'm wrong I'm very willing to accept it, it doesn't change my opinion. But if I'm right I'd like some stats or studies to support me. Does anybody know any?

I know the whole idea of this debate might seem very backwards and ludicrous to mumsnet readers but this is a church debate and I'm actually really excited that so many people are posting or considering the fact that being gay is fine and normal. So I'd hate the other side of the debate to come out on top!

Even if it were proved irrefutably that being gay were a lifestyle choice, it wouldn't make the idea that it is sinful any more logical.

Equally, some religious people differentiate between sexual orientation and sexual practice - they accept that people are born gay but still consider gay sex to be sinful.

Anterior commissure: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC49673/pdf/pnas01089-0546.pdf

Sin! Just the way some people are born, nothing to do with 'sin' (which has odious connotations of organised-religion intolerance)

"Even if it were proved irrefutably that being gay were a lifestyle choice, it wouldn't make the idea that it is sinful any more logical."

^^ This, and what others said too.

Just step away from the FaceBook bigots, OP.

This is the only thing you will win with these debates.

Who cares if they "choose" to be gay? Does it matter? Even if they did choose, who is anyone to say that choice is wrong?

It's society that labels and divides, insisting on pigeonholing.

The article they posted isn't dismissing your argument, it's saying people's sexuality is whatever it is but being labelled as gay or straight is a social construct not a biological one.

It certainly doesn't back up any suggestion that being gay is a sin.

I hope that link works, I can't even check it (on an iPad so no flash). My DP had always thought that being gay was a choice until I showed him that.

Google homosexual behaviour in animals, there's lots of evidence that other species have homosexual behaviour as well.

I don't think the article goes against that as it says that homosexual behaviour is a time old and universal practice but this doesn't mean that sexuality is set at birth. I was going to use the prolific evidence of accepted homosexual activity in Ancient Rome but that doesn't prove the point either. Rather it says that people (and animals to use your example) behaved as they chose and might happily have sexual relations with either or both genders without labelling themselves one or the other. Which, I guess, may or may not mean that we are born one way or the other.

Grumpyredhead - can't watch that link at work but will definitely look later and hopefully can use it.

That's the thing mardybra (and others) - I'm keen on this debate because I don't think it's full of bigots. People are actively listening to each other and changing their opinions (or holding them less doggedly at least). I think it's positive. I hope it is anyway.

The website is correct in as far as the idea that people had one, fixed sexual orientation which defined them dates back to the 1860s. Before that there was recognition of same-sex acts between men (sodomy as it was known and was a criminal offence) but sex was thought to be something you did, not something you were or a category into which you could be put. Same-sex acts between women were never criminalised because the law-makers (men!) prior to the end of the 19th century couldn't imagine women wanting to make love to one another.

Fast forward to now, and I think it's more complex than either 'born that way' or 'a lifestyle choice'. From conception onwards we're all subject to a whole host of biological, social and family influences that shape who we are and who we become so that by the time we reach the age of understanding about sexual desires most of us aren't making a free or conscious choice like, say, picking what we're going to wear.

But the point is, whatever you believe about how people come to identify their sexuality, all orientations are equally deserving of value and respect so long as they're based on consensual relationships between adults. That should be the case irrespective of whether you think it's nature, nurture or something in between.

The article linked in the OP is an opinion piece, not rigorous research (and the publication it's in is hardly an authoritative, unbiased one). It's by a historian, who is not scientifically qualified to dissect the nature/nurture debate. And it doesn't actually say anything about the internal 'being' of sexuality, only about the external expression of it in different societies (some of those being societies that were very strongly against the concept, so external expression there is likely to be subtle and scarce). In fact the numerous examples it gives of same-sex attraction across multiple cultures and historical periods are an argument in favour of, rather than against, it being innate. And a lot of his argument is no more that 'I don't personally know of an example' - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; but is frequently evidence of inadequate research.

That contrasts rather strongly with the paper by neuroscientists about physical differences in brain structure.

To take another angle - how are they defining sin? Something forbidden by god? Because if so there will be hundreds of examples in the bible of things forbidden by god that they almost certainly don't consider to be a sin (invite them to a barbecue and see how many turn up freshly shaven and happily tuck into pork sausages and grilled prawns, then quiz them on the composition of their trouser fabric - Leviticus alone contains something like 600+ stipulations, hardly any of which are now followed by most churches).

some good lines there Doris - thanks!

Punk - anything from Leviticus or anywhere else in the Old Testament is easy to refute because it is seen as being a law under the old covenant (ie before Jesus took away the need for the law by dying on the cross). Apologetics is mainly concerned with the New Testament as, in the opinion of many Christians, we should be living in accordance with everything in it. However, in my opinion, it is still a product of its time. I believe the theology and spiritual content of it but I think much of the lifestyle guidance has to be left in its time and culture. I believe God is infallible - Paul ... not so much!

"I have said that people are born gay or straight therefore were created that way therefore it can't be a sin."

That is not a great argument.

Pedophiles and psychopathic killers are born that way, too. Would you not say that it is a sin to molest little children or to torture & kill people?

Nicely put, Manic!

If it's a religion thing I would just find a bible quote because Christians say that God loves everyone whatever they think/do/say.

The basic premise is, I suppose, 'is homosexuality a sin?'.

Oh well you wont ever win that one because anyone who believes in sins is a lost cause. Not sure how you thought that would ever be 'intelligent' debate tbh.

I paraphrased Cote - nor was it my whole argument, just the bit that was challenged first. I don't really want to post the whole argument in case anyone on the debate is on here. But no, I freely admit, I'm not the best debater - hence asking for advice!

Chipsandspuds - problem with that is that God (and Christians) are supposed to love people who sin, given that everybody sins anyway. Love the sin and hate the sinner kind of thing. So, while that argument would work in the case of people being prejudiced against homosexuality, it won't actually make any difference to whether or not people think it is wrong. God (and therefore Christians, in theory) love liars, murderers, thieves etc. Being sinful doesn't mean God doesn't love you, that's the whole point of grace.

fair point awfuldaughter tisn't a spat though, it's a debate. Quite a good one so far too, my ineptness aside!

Is the question "Is homosexuality a sin?" or is it "Does God love homosexuals?".

"I have said that people are born gay or straight therefore were created that way therefore it can't be a sin."

It's not a great argument for bisexuals either. If they can, to some extent, choose which gender they go with, does that make them sinners when they are with someone of their own gender?

I guess it comes down to whether you believe in a God that makes arbitrary demands on people, like deciding something harmless is sinful. You could make that argument based on the Old Testament very easily, so I'm sure some people believe it.

This is one of my favourite radio interviews of all time. I don't quite agree with what the interviewer says just after 4:00 - I don't think that people are born gay any more than they're born straight, for the reasons I said above. But what he says after 7:00 might be helpful for your Facebook debate. The shellfish argument from about 9:25 is brilliant.

Then there's the question of 'if it's a sin, why did the early church not only permit but actually preside over - and have specific forms of services for - same sex weddings?'

See for example www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasachristianrite.html

Here a closely related article rense.com/general50/cath.htm is followed by a rather shouty counter view about what these weddings meant and whether they were actually about sexuality or about a purely non-physical, spiritual bond (an idea that ignores the fact that there's more to any relationship than just sex), but although it calls into question some aspect it doesn't - as far as can tell in a quick reading - demolish every point, and particularly the one about the two saints being explicitly referred to as 'lovers' in the earliest accounts of their martyrdom.

Certainly it's not in dispute that these ceremonies were conducted, and the fact that the services began to outlawed at the same time as the views against homosexual acts hardened suggests that there was a sexual aspect to them - after all, if they were merely a way of declaring asexual spiritual brotherhood, the prohibition of certain types of sex shouldn't affect the services. (Probably the first law against equal marriage - 4th century Theodosian Code 9.8.3: "When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion (quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam), what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.

Love the sin and hate the sinner kind of thing I think you might have that the wrong way round.

Ask them to define homosexuality, it has different definitions in different countries and general meaning changes. Often these people are so caught up in 'it' being wrong that they don't know what 'it' is.

In some places it is quite normal for males on a night out to have anal sex with each other, but they would not consider themselves gay.

In some countries the person penetrating (if we are talking about anal sex) is not gay the one being penetrated is.

What about male rape? Does that make the victim gay?

Stephen Fry makes no secret of being gay but also says he has never had anal sex, exactly what is his sin? If it is any contact with another male what about Judas kissing Jesus?

Ask them how two women can have sex. At what point does the act become 'gay' or a sin. Are women allowed to hug? To kiss on the cheek? At what point does something actually become sex?

Ok then ask what Jesus said about it? You will find all references are in the Old Testament and they are few and far between. If you look at Leviticus then homosexuality is a sin along with eating a prawn sandwich and wearing poly-cotton. And all the rules about not eating pork, not working on the Sabbath, owning slaves and making burned offerings - all the stuff that most Christians say they don't have to do because Jesus brought a new testament / covenant.

Why'd you want to win it?

OP In Nigeria they have a saying "Never argue with an idiot, as no one will be able to tell you apart"

Hang on, not that I'm calling you an idiot! It's just you can't fight prejudice with rational argument cos it's not rational to begin with.

Good luck though!