The Classic Homosexuality Debate

[Darfius]

:facepalm:

My refutation:

[CommanderVimes]

As if that same line of reasoning wouldn't apply equally to our circumstances, psychological disposition, etc.? I agree that the fat gene idea is probably baloney (since obesity is a relatively modern development; at least according to evolutionary standards). There are people with thyroid problems (but for the most part obesity is caused by poor diet and not exercising ... simple). However, arguably our culture contributes to obesity. High fructose corn syrup is calorie for calorie worse than regular sugar in terms of producing belly fat; and high fructose corn syrup is in nearly everything with carb calories.

We know that a child raised in a certain environment is more likely to have certain predispositions as an adult (for instance kids who were abused are more likely to be abusers themselves, criminals, and substance abusers). Is it god's fault they were raised in that sort of household? Well, if you believe in god, and you think he arranges the universe, then you'd have to say yes.

The fat gene increases the chances for obesity by storing more body fat I think. If that's the case then it would have been advantageous in the days of scarce resources but in the modern age with an overabundance of food it is now detrimental.

[YourMaster]

The fat gene increases the chances for obesity by storing more body fat I think. If that's the case then it would have been advantageous in the days of scarce resources but in the modern age with an overabundance of food it is now detrimental.

Indeed, the fact that our body stores fat is a survival mechanism (and the product of selection). Nevertheless, people often believe they have some sort of deficiency that prevents weight loss. What they don't understand is how few calories we actually need, the absolute garbage in some of the processed foods we eat, and how much exercise our bodies should have. Unless there's a true metabolic imbalance caused by a thyroid problem (e.g. hypothyroidism) we should look in the mirror: our diets & frequency/intensity of exercise.

[YourMaster]

Yes, but responses to external circumstances are clearly more a matter of choice than something one is born with. Some people born in abusive homes develop an intense empathy for all manner of suffering.

That is true; but IMO it's far more complex than that. I think we need to stop thinking in extreme terms, like the universe is "either" deterministic or we have total free will (that's a false dichotomy). Practically speaking we only have a choice if we know it exists. In other words our choices are dictated by the information we have, and our ability to process that information (governed by our level of intellect). Moreover, poor behavior in many cases boils down to poor impulse control. The fact is not even neuropsychologists fully understand all the different factors that influence our impulses or intelligence. There is a growing (and already robust) body of information that's been collected by behavioral psychologists over the past several decades (beginning the 1950's with B.F. Skinner) – that is shedding light on why we behave the way we do. It's much more deterministic than most people think. However, the more we understand about ourselves and our mind, the more power we'll be able to shape our own destinies. The adult who was abused as a child who develops empathy for all manner of suffering may seem like an example of free will; but that's probably a superficial analysis (it's likely much more deterministic than most people realize).

[YourMaster]

Excuse me ... I meant to say "the more power we'll have to shape our destinies" . . .

[CommanderVimes]

Indeed, the fact that our body stores fat is a survival mechanism (and the product of selection). Nevertheless, people often believe they have some sort of deficiency that prevents weight loss. What they don't understand is how few calories we actually need, the absolute garbage in some of the processed foods we eat, and how much exercise our bodies should have. Unless there's a true metabolic imbalance caused by a thyroid problem (e.g. hypothyroidism) we should look in the mirror: our diets & frequency/intensity of exercise.

Yes, while the FTO gene may store more body fat than usual, proper exercise and diet will prevail. Fat people are generally lazy.

[PsychGuy]

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this; been a busy week. Anyways, here goes, if we're not already tired of the subject...

Not unaware. Just unconvinced. Fat people don't reach for the third piece of pie because of a fat gene.

Precisely. The point is, fat people don't necessarily HAVE to be over-eaters. This is BECAUSE their weight is influenced by their genetics right out of the gate. My brother is a classic example. I would not classify him as being obese, but certainly overweight. He has always, throughout his entire childhood and adult life, been a big person. At his most athletic in high school, when he was participating in multiple sports, he was still chunky. He was very strong (won a high school weightlifting competition), and nothing was wrong with his health, but he has never had an "athletic," lean physique. It's simply a fact, well established by the scientific literature, that genetics plays a part in influencing our weight and physique. Yes, environment and lifestyle choices ALSO play an important role, but they are not the exclusive determining factors.

To be fair, there are certainly environmental factors (fat parents, stress, etc.) that contribute to obesity, just as there are environmental factors that may contribute to homosexuality, but genetics plays no part.

The evidence for that position is simply not there. I really don't think you're going to find anyone in modern medicine or physiology that holds the position that weight is PURELY based on environment or lifestyle choices. If you'd like to provide EVIDENCE that you think supports your position, I'd love to see it.

Who is responsible for our biology? God or chance? If God, then you are directly attributing sin to Him.

No, sorry, I'm not.

And citing the fall doesn't cut it. The fall allowed for physical deficiencies, not behavioral ones.

Um....your physical body influences your behavior, bud. There's a reason you walk and don't fly: you have legs and not wings. I am in NO WAY suggesting some deterministic scheme where just because you have some gene you are GUARANTEED to engage in some behavior (particularly what Christians would call sin). The evidence is indicative of the fact that certain people are predisposed to certain behavioral patterns. That doesn't mean, "God made them do it."

And if a three year old boy has had his smothering mother reinforce feminine behavior or an absent father not reinforce masculine behavior, he may associate the 'natural' with the feminine.

Sure, but AGAIN, this takes away from your argument that homosexuality is about "personal choices" made in childhood, and speaks more to parenting style, over which a child has no control.

When you claim that God created a man to think of himself as a woman, you are either saying such a man should have been born a woman or God implants us with sin.

No, I'm not. God allows sin to occur. We are born in a sinful condition, as you've admitted. The philosophical problem of why God allows us to be born with a propensity to sin doesn't go away by saying this problem is "spiritual," nor does it get worse simply by saying that biology is involved as well. Again, I'm not advocating determinism.

As I've already allowed. But it is a long, choice-filled road from being born a relatively passive male to homosexuality. Even men born naturally more aggressive than others are passive in relation to older men as they mature, so if passivity was all that was required for a man to become homosexual, all men would be gay.

And I never claimed that inherited passivity was all that was involved. You're the one who brought up temperament.

What is the "large likelihood?"

I believe last time I looked into it the correlation was about .60? Which, if you're not familiar, is, well, pretty darn strong.

And no, it doesn't seem odd at all, even if true. Twins are a profound mystery that only God really understands, sharing a connection that those of us who are not twins cannot understand. It is even possible that the conscious choices of one twin subconsciously affect the other.

Including twins raised apart? Twins aren't psychic.

But again, I fully allow a genetic component to temperament, but temperament is nowhere near being a cause for behavior.

Again, you have no reason to preclude causation if experiments have established the effect of temperament on behavior.

It is more like an indicator of the likely expression of certain chosen modes of behavior. And temperaments can change within a person's lifetime depending on the choices such a person makes.

There is a lot of debate about whether or not, or to what degree, personality/temperament change across the lifespan. But this is really a conversation separate from one about homosexuality. Not all homosexuals have the same temperament. You're trying to tie them together because you believe in the stereotype of homosexual men as feminine (passive), and lesbians as masculine (aggressive/assertive). You haven't actually provided the evidence that this is consistently the case across the homosexual population.

Great sinners and great saints are typically made up of the same 'great' stuff, as C.S. Lewis noted, but they obviously made vastly different choices with their 'raw material.' A man may share certain temperamental attributes more commonly associated with a woman, but that could result in him being more able to relate to women on certain issues or see particular beauty in women that other men are not as able to and does not necessitate that he become homosexual, which I take to be an at least somewhat willful perversion of the raw material. Similarly, my epic masculinity is in part due to the healthy amount of 'dominance' inherent in the nature I was born with, but that could have led to me despising submissiveness to the point that I was repelled by its embodiment in the woman and seeking out instead men I could dominate, which would have been a perversion of the attribute. Instead, I am enthralled by the feminine (namely my beautiful wife) as the natural and therefore inherently captivating counterpart to my own nature.

I don't disagree with this analysis per se, I simply don't think it captures the entire picture of what's going on. We're NOT all born with the same "raw material," if "raw material" means temperaments, predispositions, mental/cognitive abilities, etc. You're implicitly (if not explicitly) advocating a very behaviorist, "blank slate" sort of theory of human nature, where we're all basically born as homogenous, neutral sponges who are purely affected by their environment and "nature"(biology/inherited characteristics) plays an extremely small, if any, role at all in development. This was a popular 20th century perspective (especially the first half of the century), but the evidence just doesn't support it. We are who we are because of the interaction between our inherited biology and our environment. Homosexuality isn't any different in that regard.

No. How is my knowledge of so-called scientific literature on sexual orientation relevant to my ability to understand and make arguments on the matter.

If you're ignorant of the literature, you by definition don't understand it and therefore your arguments are going to tend to be un(or mis-)informed.

Unless you plan on fallaciously arguing from authority, you should stick with addressing what I say, and not what I may or may not have read.

It's not an argument from authority, it's an argument from evidence. People have actually studied these things we're talking about and there is evidence that leads us to certain conclusions. If you're unaware of that research and are simply arguing from what you think, or how it makes sense in your head, your picture is going to be incomplete.

Next you'll tell me there's a genetic component to not paying attention. Oh wait, there is, it's called ADHD. Spare me the crackpot "science" please.

LOL. You think ADHD is "crackpot science?"

People murder because they're pissed, they are antisocial because they weren't raised right/have turned themselves into selfish, narcissistic social imbeciles and don't pay attention because they're idiots. Genetics deals with what we look like, not what we act like.

Physiology influences behavior. I'm sorry, but that's the reality of the situation. If you don't get that, I don't really know what else to say to you. I could point you to a myriad of studies, but your almost conspiracy-like attitude toward the opinions of the scientific community leads me to believe you'll yet again just be dismissive and ignore what's said. *shrug*

You claim to be a Christian and yet you have a retarded sense of personal responsibility. Where is any mention of "genetic components" in the Bible?

The Bible isn't a science textbook. I don't expect everything I believe to be housed explicitly in its pages. Lots of things that aren't mentioned in the Bible can still be consistent with the teachings of the Bible and not contradict what the Bible does state. The existence of cars, for example. (unless you're a Jack van Impe fan, in which case you may think that something in Ezekiel prophesies automobiles).

And before you show your Biblical ignorance even more, "the flesh" did not have any meaning like that at all, but meant only the physical body that existed in a fallen world and was thus in a fallen state that had everything to do with not being in strict obedience to the desires of its owner and nothing to do with introducing desires to its owner of its own.

There's no reason to assume that from the texts on the flesh themselves. Paul said a war was happening within him, and he was doing things he didn't want to do. You can claim that these desires were brought upon him purely by environment and personal choice if you wish, but there's nothing in the text that precludes the possibility of some sort of inherited component.
The same goes with the Biblical discussions of "the sins of the father," etc. Again, you're going to claim that this has everything to do with upbringing, which is just peachy, but there's nothing that CONTRADICTS an understanding of these sorts of things as having an inherited component.

This is nonsensical. If I program a computer, the computer is still responsible for how it executes the program? Clearly if God implanted us with biological timebombs, He is to blame for their explosion, not us.

I never claimed we were programmed like computers. Again, your dichotomous thinking is not allowing you to see the happy medium here. Just because we are born with biological predispositions or vulnerabilities does not GUARANTEE that those things will take place.

Reasoning backwards from that, and also because of the massive amount of evidence that our choices dictate who we are/become, what you're saying can be dismissed.

Since you're starting from a false premise, your conclusion is invalid. I agree our choices influence who we become, but within boundaries. There is also a massive amount of evidence that biology influences our behavior. That's why the vast majority of the scientific community today ascribes to some degree of interactionism...biology and environment BOTH shape us.

Behavioral psychology is not the same as biology. I'm not denying that we have bodies, you dope, I'm denying that our bodies have us...at their mercy.

Then you're just ignoring the large body of evidence indicating that biology influences behavior. The ad hominem is a nice touch, though.

When you get past thinking that man is just another animal

I don't believe this.

and understand that we were created in the image of the Most High God,

I do.

maybe you'll have an easier time understanding what I'm saying.

Sorry, no. A Christian can fully believe that man was created in the image of God and also believe biology influences our behavior. I'd say the vast majority of Christians (at least in Western, industrialized nations where the evidence is available to the public) have no problem reconciling those two things. It's you who has the weird hang-up. I really don't get it.

What does being born mortal have to do with being born gay? We are born sinful in that our bodies are not in strict obedience to our desires and surrounded by sinful people.

If our bodies (that's BIOLOGY ) aren't in strict obedience to our desires, then you're admitting that we can and do engage in behavior influenced by that fallen biology. I really don't see why you're having such a hard time with this.

That is it. And it isn't biological, it's spiritual.

Bodies = Biology/Physiology, bud.

Our biology would still function essentially the same if we were glorified, it would just function at our bidding. The "biological component" to the Fall was simply and solely that we will return to the dust from which we came.

If we will return to the dust (i.e. die), then what we're saying is that a breakdown occurs biologically. I don't see what's so egregious about simply saying that this could cross generations (i.e. your parents had imperfect biology, therefore you are born with imperfect biology).

No, from the start I have allowed environment to play a role. It is a combination of environment and personal choices.

But your example, when I asked about "personal choice," revolved around parenting style.

Nonsense. A passive man is still a passive man, not a woman until he chooses to go that route.

Simply dismissing the concept out of hand isn't convincing anyone but yourself. Evidence is what you need, and you simply don't have any. If you DO have evidence that sexual orientation is PURELY the result of environment, let me know and let's see it.

Keep in mind that I perceive tribeswomen to be more masculine than their more cultured counterparts, so my changing to find them attractive would involve something similar to what a homosexual would go through.

I'm sorry, but it isn't. They're still women. You're not going to become attracted to tribesmen because they're men. Your standards of masculinity and femininity could change if you moved to a tribe in Africa, but there is a fundamental biological difference between men and women that transcends culture.

No I'm not. When Christian homosexuals discover the proclivity they have for whatever reason, it is there responsibility to bring both actions and thoughts captive to Christ. Saying "I was born this way" isn't an excuse for either actions or thoughts even were it true.

Careful there. Temptations aren't sins. And temptations are thoughts. Unwanted, even intrusive thoughts enter our minds all the time. For the Christian homosexual, temptations related to homosexuality are going to come to mind, and it's not their "fault," nor are those temptations sins. What the person does (or doesn't do) with those temptations, is their responsibility, yes. But they can't just will them to stop. You're giving willpower WAY too much credit, which can lead to just as much heterodox thinking as believing that we're deterministically constrained to sin or act righteously.

To paraphrase Chesterton, "Changing sexual orientation has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried."

Again, this is simply not the case. Many, MANY Christians struggling with unwanted homosexual urges HAVE tried. It just doesn't work as well as the advocates for such therapy would like everyone to believe.

They are only physically attracted because they have associated that physique with the personality traits they seek.

Do you have any scientific evidence for this?

That's the reason people raised by wolves aren't attracted to human beings.

Do you have any scientific evidence for THIS?

To give an example, Genesis 6 records instances of angels leaving heaven in order to be with human women. The text says it was because they saw that women were 'fair', which has an element of beauty, but deals more with 'loveliness'. Angels are far more beautiful in their unfallen state than either men or women, and do not have any biology to speak of, so mere physicality is insufficient to explain this. Men were easier for the inherently 'masculine' angels to understand; they were intelligent beasts; possessing a certain grace due to this intelligence and a certain beauty due to being made in the image of God, but still stinky, hairy, aggressive and fundamentally clumsy. Women were a special revelation of God; graceful, possessing a beauty more akin to the angels than the beasts and having an inherent submissiveness that is endearing and therefore lovely to any masculine creature. Not that the angels at all felt a 'need' for women (for it is man from whom woman came and angels were made far more 'self-sufficient' by God), and not to discount some of the obvious malicious intent the fallen angels may have had by interbreeding with humanity, but there are more implications to 'fair' than first meet the eye.

Using the sexual activity of angels as a template for understanding human sexuality is really, really weak reasoning to say the least.

And if you married your wife just because she had the right parts, you aren't much of a man.

You may think that (and I'd tend to agree with you), but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It does. Consider middle-of-the-night Vegas marriages, as an extreme example. Do they last long? Not usually. But they do happen. And again, let's be honest...they have little if anything to do with shared personality.

Skinner used to pay me to do his homework and cheat off my tests. Yes, that is exactly what I'm claiming. Not necessarily consciously learned, but learned.

I'll ask again...any scientific evidence for this?

I am heterosexual because I chose to apply the masculine personality God created me with toward masculine ends and with masculine goals, and therefore reinforced my masculinity to the point that I was attracted to the feminine.

Still waiting for that looming, ground-breaking evidence.

Yes, they fall on the spectrum, and to some extent even begin at certain points on the spectrum, but there are certain bounds within the spectrum that they are born in and it is their God given and personal responsibility to move in the appropriate direction on it.

Just to follow up on the bolded portion there....so you're admitting that people are born falling in different places on the masculinity/feminity spectrum? For example, some men are born more feminine than other men?

Am I going to discount conclusions arrived at via unsound premises? Of course.

This is a silly analogy to what we're talking about. A person, theoretically, would not have to believe in evolution to engage in research on sexual orientation and do, say, family history studies, or examine genes, or formulate surveys. Again, have you LOOKED at the literature and the research methods that have been employed? Unless you can find something methodologically wrong with them, simply saying, "Well, those people believe in evolution," doesn't cut it.

Ascribing behavior to biology can only exist within an evolutionary (and therefore unsound) framework.

Simply untrue. People have been ascribing behavior to biological/inherited characteristics for literally thousands of years. The nature/nurture debate, while it has evolved (no pun intended) following modern research into evolution, and genes, and now even epigenetics, has been raging for a VERY long time.

[Darfius]

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this; been a busy week. Anyways, here goes, if we're not already tired of the subject...

No rush. Thanks for the response.

Precisely. The point is, fat people don't necessarily HAVE to be over-eaters. This is BECAUSE their weight is influenced by their genetics right out of the gate. My brother is a classic example. I would not classify him as being obese, but certainly overweight. He has always, throughout his entire childhood and adult life, been a big person. At his most athletic in high school, when he was participating in multiple sports, he was still chunky. He was very strong (won a high school weightlifting competition), and nothing was wrong with his health, but he has never had an "athletic," lean physique. It's simply a fact, well established by the scientific literature, that genetics plays a part in influencing our weight and physique. Yes, environment and lifestyle choices ALSO play an important role, but they are not the exclusive determining factors.

Which scientific literature? It sounds as if your brother and you have different body types, which does not lend itself to your theory.

The evidence for that position is simply not there. I really don't think you're going to find anyone in modern medicine or physiology that holds the position that weight is PURELY based on environment or lifestyle choices. If you'd like to provide EVIDENCE that you think supports your position, I'd love to see it.

Have you ever seen a fat tribesman?

Um....your physical body influences your behavior, bud. There's a reason you walk and don't fly: you have legs and not wings. I am in NO WAY suggesting some deterministic scheme where just because you have some gene you are GUARANTEED to engage in some behavior (particularly what Christians would call sin). The evidence is indicative of the fact that certain people are predisposed to certain behavioral patterns. That doesn't mean, "God made them do it."

Your analogy is poor unless you are claiming that there is a gene directly responsible for behavior. A lack of wings leaves me with no choice about flying.

Sure, but AGAIN, this takes away from your argument that homosexuality is about "personal choices" made in childhood, and speaks more to parenting style, over which a child has no control.

The child has the choice of how to respond to parental style.

No, I'm not. God allows sin to occur. We are born in a sinful condition, as you've admitted. The philosophical problem of why God allows us to be born with a propensity to sin doesn't go away by saying this problem is "spiritual," nor does it get worse simply by saying that biology is involved as well. Again, I'm not advocating determinism.

The propensity to sin comes from being born into a sinful environment and with a body that makes habitual sin more likely once a path of sin has been chosen. Choice is supreme.

Including twins raised apart? Twins aren't psychic.

I have heard of stories of twins raised apart having feelings they could not explain until they realized they were a twin. But aside from that, similarity in temperament suffices to explain similarity in behavior, if not chance.

Again, you have no reason to preclude causation if experiments have established the effect of temperament on behavior.

I do when people of similar temperaments engage in vastly different behavior.

I don't disagree with this analysis per se, I simply don't think it captures the entire picture of what's going on. We're NOT all born with the same "raw material," if "raw material" means temperaments, predispositions, mental/cognitive abilities, etc. You're implicitly (if not explicitly) advocating a very behaviorist, "blank slate" sort of theory of human nature, where we're all basically born as homogenous, neutral sponges who are purely affected by their environment and "nature"(biology/inherited characteristics) plays an extremely small, if any, role at all in development. This was a popular 20th century perspective (especially the first half of the century), but the evidence just doesn't support it. We are who we are because of the interaction between our inherited biology and our environment. Homosexuality isn't any different in that regard.

Again you attribute nothing to choice.

If you're ignorant of the literature, you by definition don't understand it and therefore your arguments are going to tend to be un(or mis-)informed.

Ridiculous. You probably would have said the same thing about Freud in the 50's, and now look at him.

It's not an argument from authority, it's an argument from evidence. People have actually studied these things we're talking about and there is evidence that leads us to certain conclusions. If you're unaware of that research and are simply arguing from what you think, or how it makes sense in your head, your picture is going to be incomplete.

I'll wait for you to actually show how it's incomplete before I start to sweat.

LOL. You think ADHD is "crackpot science?"

Know would be a better word.

Physiology influences behavior. I'm sorry, but that's the reality of the situation. If you don't get that, I don't really know what else to say to you. I could point you to a myriad of studies, but your almost conspiracy-like attitude toward the opinions of the scientific community leads me to believe you'll yet again just be dismissive and ignore what's said. *shrug*

I wonder how the angels can act at all without a physiology to influence them? Or God for that matter?

The Bible isn't a science textbook. I don't expect everything I believe to be housed explicitly in its pages. Lots of things that aren't mentioned in the Bible can still be consistent with the teachings of the Bible and not contradict what the Bible does state. The existence of cars, for example. (unless you're a Jack van Impe fan, in which case you may think that something in Ezekiel prophesies automobiles).

You still have not addressed Paul's explicit statement that homosexuality is a choice.

There's no reason to assume that from the texts on the flesh themselves. Paul said a war was happening within him, and he was doing things he didn't want to do. You can claim that these desires were brought upon him purely by environment and personal choice if you wish, but there's nothing in the text that precludes the possibility of some sort of inherited component.
The same goes with the Biblical discussions of "the sins of the father," etc. Again, you're going to claim that this has everything to do with upbringing, which is just peachy, but there's nothing that CONTRADICTS an understanding of these sorts of things as having an inherited component.

Did Cain "inherit" being a murderer from Adam and Eve? The biological explanation is not only superfluous, it is Biblically and logically bankrupt, these all-important but conveniently vague studies aside.

Since you're starting from a false premise, your conclusion is invalid. I agree our choices influence who we become, but within boundaries. There is also a massive amount of evidence that biology influences our behavior. That's why the vast majority of the scientific community today ascribes to some degree of interactionism...biology and environment BOTH shape us.

A massive amount of evidence that you keep referring to, but not in specifics.

If our bodies (that's BIOLOGY ) aren't in strict obedience to our desires, then you're admitting that we can and do engage in behavior influenced by that fallen biology. I really don't see why you're having such a hard time with this.

I think (and the Bible carries out) that our bodies only disobey once they have been taught to by habits formed by our choices. That is to say that things like 'addictions' only exist because our bodies are not in strict obedience. I do not think our bodies introduce completely new temptations. Our genes do not deal in concepts.

If we will return to the dust (i.e. die), then what we're saying is that a breakdown occurs biologically. I don't see what's so egregious about simply saying that this could cross generations (i.e. your parents had imperfect biology, therefore you are born with imperfect biology).

Are you saying that homosexuality is a genetic defect?

Careful there. Temptations aren't sins. And temptations are thoughts. Unwanted, even intrusive thoughts enter our minds all the time. For the Christian homosexual, temptations related to homosexuality are going to come to mind, and it's not their "fault," nor are those temptations sins. What the person does (or doesn't do) with those temptations, is their responsibility, yes. But they can't just will them to stop. You're giving willpower WAY too much credit, which can lead to just as much heterodox thinking as believing that we're deterministically constrained to sin or act righteously.

Careful there. Christ said that thinking about a woman inappropriately was sin, which of course applies to homosexuals as well. We are told to bring every thought captive to Christ.

Again, this is simply not the case. Many, MANY Christians struggling with unwanted homosexual urges HAVE tried. It just doesn't work as well as the advocates for such therapy would like everyone to believe.

Where were all the 1st century Christians "struggling" with homosexual urges? Or even 19th century for that matter?

Do you have any scientific evidence for this?

Science, particularly behavioral science, is only one yardstick. And not always the most appropriate one to use, particularly for the Christian. We are discussing sin and the possible causes. "Science" is not the sole point of view you should consider.

Using the sexual activity of angels as a template for understanding human sexuality is really, really weak reasoning to say the least.

Why? They are conscious, intelligent, reasoning creatures just as we are. Would you prefer to compare us to animals?

Just to follow up on the bolded portion there....so you're admitting that people are born falling in different places on the masculinity/feminity spectrum? For example, some men are born more feminine than other men?

In particular areas, such as passivity, which I've already admitted.

This is a silly analogy to what we're talking about. A person, theoretically, would not have to believe in evolution to engage in research on sexual orientation and do, say, family history studies, or examine genes, or formulate surveys. Again, have you LOOKED at the literature and the research methods that have been employed? Unless you can find something methodologically wrong with them, simply saying, "Well, those people believe in evolution," doesn't cut it.

Cite specific studies or stop referring to them. I'm sick of the arguments from authority.

Simply untrue. People have been ascribing behavior to biological/inherited characteristics for literally thousands of years. The nature/nurture debate, while it has evolved (no pun intended) following modern research into evolution, and genes, and now even epigenetics, has been raging for a VERY long time.

In modern day discussion, and in terms of concrete (though incorrect) theories, it can only exist within an evolutionary framework.

[Zero Tolerance]

Two questions:
1) What is the cause of homosexuality? Is there more than one? Is it biological/innate or environmental/social? Or a little of both?

2) Can sexual orientation change? Does "gay-to-straight" therapy, for example, work?

For #2, yes. We make conscious decisions to lay in bed with people. I personally know a few people who were gay-bisexual and have maintained a monogamous, heterosexual marriage for at least a decade since their "switch."

[OneSizeFit]

Two questions:
1) What is the cause of homosexuality? Is there more than one? Is it biological/innate or environmental/social? Or a little of both?

2) Can sexual orientation change? Does "gay-to-straight" therapy, for example, work?

God created nature. Homosexuality is observable throughout the animal kingdom.

[Darfius]

God created nature. Homosexuality is observable throughout the animal kingdom.

So are fornication and adultery.

[OneSizeFit]

By that logic we should not have sex period.

[Little Shepherd]

By that logic we should not have sex period.

Logic's not your strong point, is it?

[princesa]

For #2, yes. We make conscious decisions to lay in bed with people. I personally know a few people who were gay-bisexual and have maintained a monogamous, heterosexual marriage for at least a decade since their "switch."

This answer was in response to " Can sexual orientation change? Does "gay-to-straight" therapy, for example, work? "

I may be misunderstanding but our conscious decisions have no bearing on our desires and may not change our orientation. Gay Christians (i.e) will stay married to their heterosexual partners b/c of what they believe is sinful or simply b/c they want to stay faithful to their spouse but it will not change their "desire" or "orientation" of being attracted to the same sex. Am I giving a different definition of orientation than you're using?

[OneSizeFit]

Logic's not your strong point, is it?

Thinking isnt your, is it?