Jason Collins: first openly gay athlete in US Sports history

[ImperialOrange]

I don't know if it's really a choice when the other option is spending the afterlife in hell.

Well if you believe in Hell it's not really that tough of a choice is it?

For arguements sake though, one could live an active homosexual lifestyle, eventually repent and go to Heaven. Sinning by itself does not condemn someone to hell otherwise we would all be condemned.

 

[Todd Gack]

You said this "The heterosexual who chooses to abstain for life is doing so for reasons other than whether sex is sinful or not." I do not agree with you.
I have no idea what you are sugessting the reason is why heterosexual Christians who abstain from sex are doing so other than to avoid sin. Maybe it would be easier if you can answer your own statement yourself.
What is the reason why you think that "the heterosexual who chooses to abstain for life" is abstaining if not for the purpose of avoiding sin?

Just so we're clear, when I say "abstain for life," I'm talking about someone who's decided to not get married. Those people are saying, "I won't have sex because sex outside of marriage is sinful." They are not saying, "Sex is inherently sinful." There is a difference. And their decision to be celibate is influenced as much by their desire not to have a spouse -- or some other motivation, such as those who think celibacy breeds creativity -- as their opinion of pre-marital sex.

Back to my question: Do you disagree that -- in the traditional biblical view -- homosexual acts are always sinful?

 

[timkay99]

No doubt your personality is informed by your experiences -- but there's probably a genetic element to it as well. I have my mom's personality -- whose experience growing up was different than mine. My siblings -- who had the same experiences as me growing up -- are like my dad. Either way, personality is not sexuality. If I were to undergo a life-changing experience tomorrow, my personality would probably be altered -- my sexuality would not.

You can appreciate a man's handsomeness or physique and not be gay -- if you're sexually attracted to him, you probably are. And, yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder -- my point is that you don't consciously make the decision to perk up when in the presence of an attractive girl. It comes naturally to you.

If a 1/4 of the population had a choice of who they were physically attracted to, I'd submit there'd be a lot more lesbians.

Ya know, I was going to make a comment about "perking up", since I don't normally have that happen when talking to beautiful women.

Crap. Guess I am asexual.

But seriously, in discussing only people that are looking to get married or have significant relationships, I do think there are some individuals that do it for reasons other then sexual orientation (gradually falling in love, prefer that type of sex, loneliness, etc.).

The one thing I want to mention is I don't think you have to have a homesexual orientation to fall in love and want to get married with someone of that sex.

And in regards to the lesbian thing, I am curious who has more marriages/unions. Remember, most women know women are batstuff crazy!

Some of my thoughts may or may not be influenced by Chasing Amy...

 

[kuethstheman]

In my mind, you are either born gay or straight. For those who are born gay, they might go through their whole life repressing the fact that they are gay and never acting out on it, which I think is a direct result of societal pressures, but they are still "gay." I just don't see how there could be something that happens in your formative years that can "turn" someone gay.

As for people who define themselves as "bisexual," I think they are more likely just hyper-sexual individuals who are attracted to both sexes mainly due to uncontrollable sexual urges.

Something I read a while back said that men that were abused as boys are gay at a higher rate than non-abused men. Not proof but at least implies that the abuse was a causative factor.

 

[Todd Gack]

Ya know, I was going to make a comment about "perking up", since I don't normally have that happen when talking to beautiful women.

Crap. Guess I am asexual.

But seriously, in discussing only people that are looking to get married or have significant relationships, I do think there are some individuals that do it for reasons other then sexual orientation (gradually falling in love, prefer that type of sex, loneliness, etc.).

The one thing I want to mention is I don't think you have to have a homesexual orientation to fall in love and want to get married with someone of that sex.

And in regards to the lesbian thing, I am curious who has more marriages/unions. Remember, most women know women are batstuff crazy!

Some of my thoughts may or may not be influenced by Chasing Amy...

By "perk up," I meant nothing re: blood flow. And, yes, there are plenty of people who get married for non-physical reasons (see Liza Minnelli and David Gest).

It's funny you mention "Chasing Amy" -- as I thought of that as well. I also remember something a friend said when her mother asked if her sister was just going through a lesbian phase -- it's apropos to my line of thinking, but too vulgar to print here.

 

[Todd Gack]

Something I read a while back said that men that were abused as boys are gay at a higher rate than non-abused men. Not proof but at least implies that the abuse was a causative factor.

There's a lot of junk science out there.

 

[sabach]

Just so we're clear, when I say "abstain for life," I'm talking about someone who's decided to not get married. Those people are saying, "I won't have sex because sex outside of marriage is sinful." They are not saying, "Sex is inherently sinful." There is a difference. And their decision to be celibate is influenced as much by their desire not to have a spouse -- or some other motivation, such as those who think celibacy breeds creativity -- as their opinion of pre-marital sex.

Back to my question: Do you disagree that -- in the traditional biblical view -- homosexual acts are always sinful?

I believe that homosexual acts are always sinful and heterosexual acts outside of marriage are always sinful. What you want me to say is that homosexual acts are always sinful (inherently) and that heterosexual acts are not inherently sinful because they are allowed in heterosexual marriage. I don't make that distinction and I do not think the Bible does either. Any sexual act outside of sex between a married man and woman is sinful and is never acceptable under any circumstance. In other words, it is inherently sinful regardless if it is a same sex act or a straight sex act.

I believe that a homosexual Christian who does not engage in sex is doing so to avoid sin as does a heterosexual Christian who is not married. I do not know of anyone who thinks that sex outside of marriage is acceptable, but purposely chooses not to have sex so that they can be more creative.

 

[MCC]

To be honest, Tim, I don't know. Perhaps gay people are genetically and biologically homosexual from the moment they're born, or maybe some do in fact develop their sexuality during puberty. I'm hoping MCC can swoop in here and provide you with a definitive scientific answer.

LOL. I was avoiding this thread but was drawn in once religion and biblical morals became the focus. In brief, my opinion is that the genetic elements are inherited but not solely responsible for orientation. More below...

Sexuality is probably mostly genetic. There are plenty of examples of brothers or even twins where one is gay and the other straight. If it were environmental then I don't think you would see the variations.

The three long time gay friends I have started off claiming they were bi. It seems like at least for some guys rationalizing their sexuality by trying to convince themselves that they're bi is just a stop on the road to self acceptance.

In my experience, the guys who say they're bisexual really like guys and the girls who say they're bisexual really like guys. But never say never.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

If orientation were "mostly genetic", you'd see a high concordance rate in orientation between monozygotic (genetically identical) twins. We don't observe this; in fact the concordance rate is just a tad over 50%. This despite a sample that I suspect would be biased toward higher concordance: you'd think if both twins were gay, they'd be more likely to come forward. Dizygotic twins show lower concordance, something like 30% IIRC.

I suspect a few factors (e.g. genetics, environment, initial "imprinting") are drivers of orientation. Recent research (2012, so it really is recent) by Andrea Camperio-Ciani suggests the genetics are a factor but are mosaic rather than binary. To wit, female relatives (aunts and grandmothers; you have to eliminate fraternal birth biases) of homosexual men are more fertile than age- and otherwise-matched females from families without homosexuals. This suggests that there is some "androphilic" X-linked gene cluster that also manifests in homosexual probands and confers a reproductive advantage.

Bear in mind that we haven't definitively identified specific genetic factors, although evidence is mounting in support of certain clusters. Further complicating matters is that the epigenetic (methylation, deacetylation activity) profiles in XX and XY embryonic cells may buffer differentially against the effects of androgen during the earliest stages of development... you get the idea. It's complicated.

Bottom line: the genetic factors that may underpin homosexuality are probably there for a reason and likely confer a reproductive advantage; namely they help your family's genes get passed down via increased female fertility. For those that wondered about the survival and relative stability of homosexuality despite the apparent reproductive advantage, this theory may help resolve the apparent conundrum.

I wonder if we will need to wait for this to get to the OT board for him to make an appearance! Definitely be interested to see if he has any comments on it.

Glad I could chip in here.

 

[Todd Gack]

I believe that homosexual acts are always sinful ...

This is where we can stop -- because it proves why the celibate Christian homosexual feels different than the celibate Christian heterosexual. And my point is they're not the same -- as much as the Warren ilk want to slap themselves on the back.

 

[themole]

Something I read a while back said that men that were abused as boys are gay at a higher rate than non-abused men. Not proof but at least implies that the abuse was a causative factor.

Or, the (male) abusers figure a (male) kid who they perceive to be gay might be more open to their advances.

 

[sabach]

This is where we can stop -- because it proves why the celibate Christian homosexual feels different than the celibate Christian heterosexual. And my point is they're not the same -- as much as the Warren ilk want to slap themselves on the back.

You do what you need to do to. I think everyone on this board can see that you took out 95% of my post.

 

[Eric15]

Further complicating matters is that the epigenetic (methylation, deacetylation activity) profiles in XX and XY embryonic cells may buffer differentially against the effects of androgen during the earliest stages of development.

I for one have always been frustrated by this. It's like, come on XX and XY embryonic cells - what the hell is your problem? Stop buffering differentially against the effects of androgen already!

 

[Todd Gack]

You do what you need to do to. I think everyone on this board can see that you took out 95% of my post.

That's not what the Bible says.

 

[Todd Gack]

That's not what the Bible says.

Ha, I responded before you went back and edited your original post (making my response less witty). I took it out because our only area of contention is the effect telling homosexuals that their sex act is inherently sinful has on their psyche. We're in agreement on what you and other conservative Christians' understanding of premarital sex is. I didn't respond to the "people who think premarital sex is okay but don't engage in it to be creative" statement because 1) I never said anything like that and 2) you've obviously never been to a Morrissey concert.

 

[KingOtis]

Where in this thread has anyone stated that your sexuality (gay or straight) has anything to do with whether you go to Heaven or Hell.

Well, what happens if you live your life in sin?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

By "perk up," I meant nothing re: blood flow. And, yes, there are plenty of people who get married for non-physical reasons (see Liza Minnelli and David Gest).

It's funny you mention "Chasing Amy" -- as I thought of that as well. I also remember something a friend said when her mother asked if her sister was just going through a lesbian phase -- it's apropos to my line of thinking, but too vulgar to print here.

speaking of people who get married for non-physical reasons...

 

[KingOtis]

Well if you believe in Hell it's not really that tough of a choice is it?

For arguements sake though, one could live an active homosexual lifestyle, eventually repent and go to Heaven. Sinning by itself does not condemn someone to hell otherwise we would all be condemned.

Exactly. You're guilted and shamed into it because the Bible says so.

I guess it's just too bad if you live your life in sin and don't get a chance to repent before you randomly die.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Question for you guys (and maybe it is answered - I am on Page 6 of this thread):

Do you think you can develop your sexual orientation? For an example, do you believe there are truly bi-sexual people out there?

I personally don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. It is like everything else you are as a person, it is built based off your experiences in the formative ages. So, if someone is a true "bi", then they could "choose" whether to marry a man or a woman.

I just hate dealing with absolutes in things like this.

For the record (just in case people think I may be setting for a troll or something), I have zero issue with gay marriage and think they should have the same right to be as miserable as heterosexual married couples. And they definitely should receive the same government benefits.

I'm late to respond, but I do believe you are born with your orientation, and as others have said, I think there aren't really any true bi-sexuals. My gay relative agrees with me on this one as well. She claims it's just a temporary resting place until they go to their true orientation - usually gay.

Whoever said that bi-sexuals may have hyper-sexuality may be onto something as well.

 

[sabach]

Well, what happens if you live your life in sin?

Then I guess you would need a Savior who died on the cross to pay the penalty for your sin just like everybody else.

 

[KingOtis]

Then I guess you would need a Savior who died on the cross to pay the penalty for your sin just like everybody else.

Which is it then? Do you need to repent or not?

 

[sabach]

Which is it then? Do you need to repent or not?

There is not a Christian alive who does not sin before or after receiving Christ. This is why Jesus told us not to cast a stone and for us to look at the log in our own eyes before we complain about the sliver in someone else's.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Exactly. You're guilted and shamed into it because the Bible says so.

I guess it's just too bad if you live your life in sin and don't get a chance to repent before you randomly die.

No one is shamed into anything. You either believe someone is born with a sexual orientation or choose it at some point. That may or may not occur before someone chooses their belief structure. Regardless, someone is making a choice to adopt a belief system and then they live their lifestyle which may or may not fit that. Even if/though someone is born with a sexual orientation, they still choose which lifestyle they lead as far as it pertains to their faith. They can't choose who they are attracted to but they can choose what to do with those urges and it's their right to do so regardless if they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.

To your second point, it is too bad but thats why people that believe in repenting everyday. Also why they strive to live a different lifestyle knowing that they could randomly die at any given moment.

I get where you're coming from as it sounds like what I grew up believing. I had some major life moments that changed my views on things but doesn't mean you'll ever feel the same. That being said, I enjoy reading your views on things and from what I gather you think in absolutes a lot more than myself. I put a bit more weight on choice and chance don't see a lot of things in black and white.

 

[moqui]

Broussard went to far when he started passing judgement.

you can only pass judgement when you pass judgement in the affirmative

fwiw, I don't give a frying fluck about gays or Christians, but I do think that, in this day and age, what Broussard did was more courageous than what Collins did.

 

[KingOtis]

There is not a Christian alive who does not sin before or after receiving Christ. This is why Jesus told us not to cast a stone and for us to look at the log in our own eyes before we complain about the sliver in someone else's.

Did that answer my question?

 

[djcon57]

you can only pass judgement when you pass judgement in the affirmative

fwiw, I don't give a frying fluck about gays or Christians, but I do think that, in this day and age, what Broussard did was more courageous than what Collins did.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree just for the "being the first" aspect. Collins had no idea what the general reaction would be. We could all speculate it'd look like what it has been (The "Oh yeah? Cool..who cares." reaction)...but we couldn't say for 100%

Now that we've seen it...The 2nd, 3rd, so on guy that comes out, I'd be in line to agree with you. The hardcore "sin" angle is definitely more taboo today.