Here's a relevant passage regarding homosexuality and the Bible taken from a book called Koolaids by Rabih Alameddine.

"The story of sodom and Gomorrah is a simple story. Two angels come to visit Sodom and are invited by Lot, our hero, to stay at his house. All the men of Sodom, young and old, come to Lot's door wanting to get better acquainted with the angels. Those were the days, huh? So Lot, chivalrous host that he is, says, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man: let me bring them out to you and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." God tells us fucking men is a terrible thing, but a father offering his two daughters, vestal virgins no less, to a horde of horny buggers is heroic. Now that's straight.

It gets better. God tells Lot, the pimp, to get away from Sodom, with his wife and vestal virgins, for He is to unleash His wrath. Don't look back the angels tell them. Well, his wife does, failing to follow simple instructions, and is turned into a pillar of salt. The pimp is spared, but is wife does not follow orders and is not. Lot and his daughters end up in a cave. One day the older daughter says to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father." So the pimp gets drunk, his daughter fucks him, and he doesn't remember anything the next day. This is a common pattern among straight men. They always always forget what happened the night before while they were drunk. The next night, the pimp gets drunk again and his younger daughter
fucks him. All in the family and so on. Vice is nice but incest is best.

So here we have the story of Sodom and Gomporrah. God destroys the faggots with fire and brimstone. He turns a disobedient wife into salt. But he asks us to idolize drunks who sleep with their daughters or offer them to a horny unruly mob. This is the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah. Homosexuals are bad."  

I have no problem with gay pride parades whatsoever.  It's an opportunity for the community to celebrate.  Us Irish folk have the St. Patrick Day parade and no one complains.  And it's not like drunken Irish nitwits vomiting on themselves is some new phenomenon sweeping the planet.  And there's also the Colombus Day parade, as if greasy, mouth breathing eye-tals are something worth celebrating!  

FWIW, not much is said of Lot after that point. Lot made some bad decisions, and God spared him, we find that he ended up in a cave being humped by his daughters. The sons of his daughters were the Moabites and the Ammonites, two races eventually nearly wiped out by the Israelites. Not sure the message there is to idolize the incestuous drunk. Gotta keep your stories in context.

I thought I'd throw out my little viewpoint, since my particular view hasn't said anything yet, and probably for good reason. You see, the (sort of) view I would belong to is just about as pigdeon-holed into a view as the homosexual group is. There is a presumption as to what I'll say and you'll be wrong.

First, I do believe that the Bible is 100% correct. As I demonstrated with the above response, I'm fairly well-versed in it, and I've read it in its entirety more than once. I cannot pretend to fully understand everything in it, and I would doubt anyone could honestly claim to, though I'm come across some who try.

I'll also throw in some personal perspective that a lot of people just won't admit to because of the stigma that would go along with it.

I'm of the persuasion that homosexuality is a choice. I mean, at its base, we're talking about little more than an act that defines one as being homosexual. They prefer relations with their own sex. Now, along with this choice, an entire lifestyle has arisen, but historically, homosexuality has not lent itself to a lifestyle, just that sexual preference. Trouble is, that we are a people who must quantify and qualify, and as such, we have created a category for this group of people in order to alienate them. Yes, creating an entire category called Sexual Orientation alienates this group and gives them a sort of status. It also categorizes Homosexuality as being something separate, just as all the race categories serve to subdivide and separate the races from each other.

So why is it a choice? Well, society defines the lifestyle as a male who is well-cultured, tending towards theatre over TV, cocktails over beer, and well-fitted and tailored clothing over jeans and a t-shirt. Crap, I just described myself. You know, based upon my own choices and preferences, people have often labeled me as gay. More so when I was single, as I also didn't even have a girlfriend until I was out of high school. No first kiss till 19. I not only enjoy the theatre, but I've written my share of musicals and I was in a few of those as well (I even spell it with an 're'). I can easily say that for my part, my brain did sort of swing both ways being curious about both sides of the coin, however, my personal upbringing brought me into the relationship I have now with a wife and three children. Why? Because the Bible does indicate that male and female relations are natural and same sex ones are not. It's actually pretty blatant about that point. People may say that the Bible is vague on some things, but that's one of those very clear points, and so I sway that way. But as a matter of choice, I could have gone the other. I wasn't "pre-programmed" either way.

Why would someone choose something that would alienate them from their family? There is a lot of cultural influence here. Remember that we have to categorize, and as such, we feel the need to choose at a certain age. Also, people choose things that alienate them from their families all the time. Women choose men their fathers hate, and although he swears he'll disown her if she married him, she does anyway. Why? Because she loves him. So this logic of not consciously choosing something that would alienate one from their family is not limited to homosexuality, and that's just the most common example. There are hundreds more, I'm sure.

There's also the argument that there aren't more gay people now; they're just not afraid to speak out. I have a devil's advocate side to that. I would say the number of people who would be gay is exactly the same now as it always was. The difference is that society has made that choice ok now, so rather than seeing it as a "wrong decision," society has accepted it as a choice, and people are free to choose it as they would a college. Hm, Dartmouth or Harvard? Him or her? The choice is yours.

So how do I personally feel about people who proclaim themselves gay? I don't hate them. I get along with them just like anyone else I know. They're people just like anyone else. Besides, only you can control your life, and you live by the choices you make. However, just as you don't want me to force you to believe in Christianity, which I also believe to be a lifestyle choice, not a religion, I don't want you to force me to accept that what you're doing is 'ok.' If you are the way you are, then I'm not going to try and change you. By the same measure, I am the way I am, and you're not going to change me either. Christianity and homosexuality are at odds with each other, and each side needs to accept that. I can accept that you are living a life that I disagree with, and that's just how the world is. It's just just people disagreeing on how others spend their money, or what car they drive, or what neighborhood they live, or the person they choose to marry. I have what amounts to the rule book I hold most sacred, and like it or not, that's what I make my choices according to. Just as you expect me to accept homosexuality, I expect you to accept that of me.

If you look at the two from a worldly perspective of simple lifestyle, how are the two so different? Each insists they are right, and neither will ever budge. Sort of like North and South Korea... Those are neighbors that live in an uneasy balance, and yet they keep living together. We're going to have to do the same.

I have to disagree w. a lot of what you wrote. I don't see someones sexual orientation as a difference that, like ones choice of car, if you don't like it, has to be tolerated. I think I understand what you're saying, that in the end, it doesn't rly matter much.

But to me it does. It makes me sad. Orientation is such a large part of who we are. This becomes obvious when others, as they have forever, try to tell us we can't be who we are. It shouldn't have to be tolerated, it should just accepted. Becuase, yes, when it is accepted, it doesn't matter.

Also you say Christianty and homosexuality are at odds. I think maybe your interpretation of the Bible is at odds w. homosexuality. Other people have different beliefes. No one person can speak for all of Christianity. There are gay Christians.

I want to say that your beliefs are your beliefs and I'm not trying to take them away from you. I'm just sharing my own.  

The Catholic church does not approve of homosexuality, which is why GLAAD cannot march in the Saint Patrick's Day parade (atleast in New York) under its own banner.





Phil

Quoted from George Willson FWIW, not much is said of Lot after that point. Lot made some bad decisions, and God spared him, we find that he ended up in a cave being humped by his daughters. The sons of his daughters were the Moabites and the Ammonites, two races eventually nearly wiped out by the Israelites. Not sure the message there is to idolize the incestuous drunk. Gotta keep your stories in context. I thought I'd throw out my little viewpoint, since my particular view hasn't said anything yet, and probably for good reason. You see, the (sort of) view I would belong to is just about as pigdeon-holed into a view as the homosexual group is. There is a presumption as to what I'll say and you'll be wrong. First, I do believe that the Bible is 100% correct. As I demonstrated with the above response, I'm fairly well-versed in it, and I've read it in its entirety more than once. I cannot pretend to fully understand everything in it, and I would doubt anyone could honestly claim to, though I'm come across some who try. I'll also throw in some personal perspective that a lot of people just won't admit to because of the stigma that would go along with it. I'm of the persuasion that homosexuality is a choice. I mean, at its base, we're talking about little more than an act that defines one as being homosexual. They prefer relations with their own sex. Now, along with this choice, an entire lifestyle has arisen, but historically, homosexuality has not lent itself to a lifestyle, just that sexual preference. Trouble is, that we are a people who must quantify and qualify, and as such, we have created a category for this group of people in order to alienate them. Yes, creating an entire category called Sexual Orientation alienates this group and gives them a sort of status. It also categorizes Homosexuality as being something separate, just as all the race categories serve to subdivide and separate the races from each other. So why is it a choice? Well, society defines the lifestyle as a male who is well-cultured, tending towards theatre over TV, cocktails over beer, and well-fitted and tailored clothing over jeans and a t-shirt. Crap, I just described myself. You know, based upon my own choices and preferences, people have often labeled me as gay. More so when I was single, as I also didn't even have a girlfriend until I was out of high school. No first kiss till 19. I not only enjoy the theatre, but I've written my share of musicals and I was in a few of those as well (I even spell it with an 're'). I can easily say that for my part, my brain did sort of swing both ways being curious about both sides of the coin, however, my personal upbringing brought me into the relationship I have now with a wife and three children. Why? Because the Bible does indicate that male and female relations are natural and same sex ones are not. It's actually pretty blatant about that point. People may say that the Bible is vague on some things, but that's one of those very clear points, and so I sway that way. But as a matter of choice, I could have gone the other. I wasn't "pre-programmed" either way. Why would someone choose something that would alienate them from their family? There is a lot of cultural influence here. Remember that we have to categorize, and as such, we feel the need to choose at a certain age. Also, people choose things that alienate them from their families all the time. Women choose men their fathers hate, and although he swears he'll disown her if she married him, she does anyway. Why? Because she loves him. So this logic of not consciously choosing something that would alienate one from their family is not limited to homosexuality, and that's just the most common example. There are hundreds more, I'm sure. There's also the argument that there aren't more gay people now; they're just not afraid to speak out. I have a devil's advocate side to that. I would say the number of people who would be gay is exactly the same now as it always was. The difference is that society has made that choice ok now, so rather than seeing it as a "wrong decision," society has accepted it as a choice, and people are free to choose it as they would a college. Hm, Dartmouth or Harvard? Him or her? The choice is yours. So how do I personally feel about people who proclaim themselves gay? I don't hate them. I get along with them just like anyone else I know. They're people just like anyone else. Besides, only you can control your life, and you live by the choices you make. However, just as you don't want me to force you to believe in Christianity, which I also believe to be a lifestyle choice, not a religion, I don't want you to force me to accept that what you're doing is 'ok.' If you are the way you are, then I'm not going to try and change you. By the same measure, I am the way I am, and you're not going to change me either. Christianity and homosexuality are at odds with each other, and each side needs to accept that. I can accept that you are living a life that I disagree with, and that's just how the world is. It's just just people disagreeing on how others spend their money, or what car they drive, or what neighborhood they live, or the person they choose to marry. I have what amounts to the rule book I hold most sacred, and like it or not, that's what I make my choices according to. Just as you expect me to accept homosexuality, I expect you to accept that of me. If you look at the two from a worldly perspective of simple lifestyle, how are the two so different? Each insists they are right, and neither will ever budge. Sort of like North and South Korea... Those are neighbors that live in an uneasy balance, and yet they keep living together. We're going to have to do the same.

I don't agree with most of this.

Homosexuality is rarely a choice and is something you are born with:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm

For me, I think that's fairly obvious.


There is also dispute as to the teachings of the Bible over Homosexuality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality

From a personal point of view, it strikes me that Jesus was a most open minded and forgiving person and discrimination based on sexuality is not something which seems to fit the persona which has been handed down to us, even through the many translations and interferences of Medieval writers.

The Bible may or may not be the result of Divine inspiration, but I think it's safe to assume that the contributors were wont to introduce aspects of their own prejudice and cultural learnings of their time into it. Even the most devout scribe is not spiritually perfect.

Similarily, readers of the Bible bring their own prejudices and perceptions to the table when they read it. They are likely to interpret it in a way that agrees with their own philosophy. We can see this in the numerous disputes that exist today and have existed through time immemorial.

Perhaps the most common quote I hear in modern times from the Bible is "An eye for an eye". This is used often by practising Christians when talking about war or punishment regarding crime. It is, of course, in direct contradiction to what their own prophet suggested.

One thing I noted somewhere in the middle is that I, personally, could have gone either way. I possess traits that are held by those that hold the gay lifestyle. And yet, in the end, it came down to a choice. Pure and simple. That's actually one reason I can't see it any other way. Race is something you're born with. A lifestyle is something you're either born into or move into. Using Christianity as a comparison point, I was born into a Christian family, but I did not always choose to follow that faith. I didn't like it for the longest time. But after much personal study and soul-searching, I found my way back to where I began. Now, I find it a lifestyle I wouldn't do without.

I find a lot of importance being placed upon this topic, and if you run down the list of the US's Equal Opportunity qualities, sexual orientation is one of only a couple that is in disagreement as a controllable trait. You can't control age, disability, or race, but you can control religious preference. Is sexual orientation really an uncontrollable trait such as race or is it something more controllable?

I would be quick to point out a famous former lesbian: Anne Heche. She was with Ellen DeGeneres for 3 years before she decided she wasn't a lesbian. She was married for 8 years, and is in a relationship now with another guy she had a child with in March. Would she tell you it's a choice or a facet you're born with.

Quoted from Astrid Also you say Christianty and homosexuality are at odds. I think maybe your interpretation of the Bible is at odds w. homosexuality. Other people have different beliefes. No one person can speak for all of Christianity. There are gay Christians.

Orientation isn't exactly who we are. Our lifestyle is who we are. We define ourselves by the choices we make, not the traits we're assigned. Obama could have been a hoodlum or oppressed because of his race, but he chose a different path.

And I'm not sure how else the specific Biblical passages could be interpreted to condone homosexuality. These aren't exactly "grey area" passages like some can be. I'm not trying to preach to persuade. In the pure interest of further defining my interpretation, I offer the following:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13

"Because of this, 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." Roman 1:26, 27

"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." 1 Corinthians 6:9,10

This is also why I lean towards choice. God would not create something he would condemn. But that's a religious view again, and I leave it to you to disagree, should you wish to. The last thing I want to be accused of is shoving something down anyone's throat.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Perhaps the most common quote I hear in modern times from the Bible is "An eye for an eye". This is used often by practising Christians when talking about war or punishment regarding crime. It is, of course, in direct contradiction to what their own prophet suggested.

And to be certain, any church will have those who are hypocritical of their own faith. 'Eye for an eye' was indeed condemned by Jesus as a response to wrongs done. He actually overturned several rules of the Jewish faith stating that the rules had lost their meaning.

This is what I was talking about in my first post on this thread.  It's going to start turning ugly as people's beliefs are brought.  And I don't want to see that. Now, why don't you guys kiss and make up?


Phil

George,

I just don't understand how something that doesn't hurt anyone should be a sin. So it doesn't make sense to me. But it seems you're not telling anyone else what to do or not to do. You're just sharing you're beliefes and I appreciate that you're willing to share em.

Talking always helps ...well, usually, lol!

Quoted from George Willson One thing I noted somewhere in the middle is that I, personally, could have gone either way. I possess traits that are held by those that hold the gay lifestyle. And yet, in the end, it came down to a choice. Pure and simple. That's actually one reason I can't see it any other way. Race is something you're born with. A lifestyle is something you're either born into or move into. Using Christianity as a comparison point, I was born into a Christian family, but I did not always choose to follow that faith. I didn't like it for the longest time. But after much personal study and soul-searching, I found my way back to where I began. Now, I find it a lifestyle I wouldn't do without. I find a lot of importance being placed upon this topic, and if you run down the list of the US's Equal Opportunity qualities, sexual orientation is one of only a couple that is in disagreement as a controllable trait. You can't control age, disability, or race, but you can control religious preference. Is sexual orientation really an uncontrollable trait such as race or is it something more controllable? I would be quick to point out a famous former lesbian: Anne Heche. She was with Ellen DeGeneres for 3 years before she decided she wasn't a lesbian. She was married for 8 years, and is in a relationship now with another guy she had a child with in March. Would she tell you it's a choice or a facet you're born with. Orientation isn't exactly who we are. Our lifestyle is who we are. We define ourselves by the choices we make, not the traits we're assigned. Obama could have been a hoodlum or oppressed because of his race, but he chose a different path. And I'm not sure how else the specific Biblical passages could be interpreted to condone homosexuality. These aren't exactly "grey area" passages like some can be. I'm not trying to preach to persuade. In the pure interest of further defining my interpretation, I offer the following: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13 "Because of this, 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." Roman 1:26, 27 "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." 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 This is also why I lean towards choice. God would not create something he would condemn. But that's a religious view again, and I leave it to you to disagree, should you wish to. The last thing I want to be accused of is shoving something down anyone's throat. And to be certain, any church will have those who are hypocritical of their own faith. 'Eye for an eye' was indeed condemned by Jesus as a response to wrongs done. He actually overturned several rules of the Jewish faith stating that the rules had lost their meaning.

Sexual orientation is set largely in the womb. That doesn't mean that it is definitively set so that you are either 100% gay or 100% straight. The common opinion is that the majority of people are somewhere in between.

A little bit more oestrogen here and a bit more testosterone there and your sexual orinetation is different.

So in your example Heche may be 70-30, 60/40 or whatever and make a decision to come down either way. Bisexuality seems to be an extremely common thing amongst women these days. I think it still has more of a taboo surrounding it with men who fear losing face.

As regards the Bible. You can't really have it both ways. It's either the word of absolute truth and you must therefore believe Gays should be stoned to death or you accept that it's just a product of the time it was written.

Any deviation from the printed words and you are assuming a superior attitude towards it, so you may as well dismiss it completely. Problem is even if you do decide to follow it completely, it's open to interpretation. Nothing I can see that Jesus said seems to suggest we should treat homosexuals in any other way than we should treat ourselves or others.

Problem with the Bible is that it wasn't written by the Prophet himself, but by people remembering things or indeed, making things up.

The bolded text I agree with. It's clear from modern science that people are born gay, so clearly those who believe in God should accept it no?

One other thing that I would add is that the Bible, if nothing else, shows us explicitly that homosexuality has been taking place for a very long time.

It's safe to assume it's a very natural state of affairs for our species.

Quoted from George Willson I would be quick to point out a famous former lesbian: Anne Heche. She was with Ellen DeGeneres for 3 years before she decided she wasn't a lesbian. She was married for 8 years, and is in a relationship now with another guy she had a child with in March. Would she tell you it's a choice or a facet you're born with.

Wasn't Anne Heche abducted by aliens at one point? Personally, I wouldn't use her as the poster child for the "choice" angle.

The whole choice vs non-choice discussion is the really interesting part. I seriously don't believe homosexuality to be a choice, neither do I think it's an affliction, but living openly as a homosexual is a choice and sometimes, unfortunately, a very painful one.

I don't think being gay is a choice. Maybe 'tending towards theater over TV' or 'cocktails over beer' is attributed to gay culture but I'm pretty sure not all gay people embrace said culture the same way not all black people listen to rap. True, there's a good chunk of people out there who build a lifestyle around a certain facet of themselves, for whatever reason (maybe that's what they believe being true to themselves means or they just want to be part of a group/family/whatever), but their lifestyle isn't neccesarily the key to defining who they are, even if it can be a big part of it. It's like Sniper said, living openly as a homosexual is the choice.

Well, the ugliness didn't come out (not that it's really turning ugly, but there was potential for it to) only after someone did not have the opinion of either "it's ok" or "I have nothing against it." As is predictable with this topic, no one came out until someone expressed the "I'm against it" view.

Quoted from Astrid I just don't understand how something that doesn't hurt anyone should be a sin

Well, that's not really anything I would be able to discuss. I didn't make the determination.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Sexual orientation is set largely in the womb.

I would be quick to note that the study was done very much after the fact and only done in adults. I would think this study would bear much more weight if the brains were  tested as individuals were born and then observed to see how they leaned later in life. Sort of making a predictive study as opposed to a reactive one. Brains grow and change as people grow and they've settled by the time they reach adulthood. You may see this as narrow-minded on my part, but a reactive study of 90 adult introverts will reveal that when placed in a room with each other, not 10 words will have been spoken after 30 minutes.

I'm not closed minded to the possibility, but if the study were made of a topic in any less of a public spotlight, I imagine the results would be a bit more questioned.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films As regards the Bible. You can't really have it both ways. It's either the word of absolute truth and you must therefore believe Gays should be stoned to death or you accept that it's just a product of the time it was written. Any deviation from the printed words and you are assuming a superior attitude towards it, so you may as well dismiss it completely. Problem is even if you do decide to follow it completely, it's open to interpretation. Nothing I can see that Jesus said seems to suggest we should treat homosexuals in any other way than we should treat ourselves or others. Problem with the Bible is that it wasn't written by the Prophet himself, but by people remembering things or indeed, making things up. The bolded text I agree with. It's clear from modern science that people are born gay, so clearly those who believe in God should accept it no? One other thing that I would add is that the Bible, if nothing else, shows us explicitly that homosexuality has been taking place for a very long time. It's safe to assume it's a very natural state of affairs for our species.

Without getting too far into the first part of this latter quote, the Old Testament punishments and such were put away with the coming of Jesus, which is a reason I used post-Jesus quotes up there as well. I am well against adding anything to the word that's there, and if I have, I would hope to be called on it.

The New Testament does not advocate killing anyone over their sins, but as Ledbetter stated earlier, loving the sinner. Love your enemies is actually what it says at one point. And yes, Jesus never said anything about treating homosexuals different than anyone else. What is stated above (granted by the apostle Paul), though, is that the act is considered wrong.

That's about as far as I would go on it without seeming like I'm trying to be overly convincing. My final thought on this one is that it is true that not all men are attracted to women, and vice versa. There's no rule that they need to be. It's actually ok for people to have same sex friendships that span their life without ever "hooking up" with a member of the opposite sex.

Is that homosexuality? I wouldn't think so. After all, the definition of homosexual and heterosexual really depends on the act, doesn't it? Boys typically grow up playing with boys, and yet, none of them are considered homosexual. In fact, children are encouraged to have same sex relationships during their childhood because it gives them peers to grow up with.

In my humble opinion, the line is only crossed when those two friends seek to convert their friendship beyond something platonic into something sexual. The real question I would have is why there is such a desperate need for the friendship to progress.

But yeah, without going too far beyond by own thoughts, that's where I feel it best to back off. I think I've explained myself well enough.

Hey George,

Thanks for the insight!  I really enjoyed reading your posts.

There is limited evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by genetic factors; there is some evidence linking sexual orientation to chromosomes 1 and 9, but it is far from compelling and inarguable evidence.

Part of the long-standing debate on the role of genetic factors influencing homosexuality stems from the fact that the presence of these factors contradicts the Darwinian prediction, and according to natural selection, homosexuality should have been “selected out”.  Why it persists is still a mystery.

There are many who believe it is a genetic trait, and there are those who believe it is a complex combination of genetics (nature) and environment (nurture), unique to each and every individual.

People who are saying that science has “proven” anything here are incorrect.  I felt compelled to clarify that point.

Unfortunately, it is all too often that either God or Science can derail a discussion that essentially boils down to simple human rights.

Won’t be the first time.  Won’t be the last.