Would your opinion of homosexuals change....

[fusnik11]

if it was proven that homosexualism was not a choice, and a matter of genetic disposition?

Do you think the stance of the church would change?

Would this affect the way you view God and this probation?

[Archaea]

No.

[rod248]

no, no, and no.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

if it was proven that homosexualism was not a choice, and a matter of genetic disposition?

Do you think the stance of the church would change?

Would this affect the way you view God and this probation?

People's views might change, but it would take a long time. It took over a hundred years for the church to abandon its bigotry against blacks. I'm sure there was a time in church history when leaders were saying things like, "We love the colored man, but we hate the skin." And I'm sure in the future there will be some authoritative church leader who will proclaim that those with lisps and high voices were less valient in the preexistence.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No.

I'm interested, why not?

[Archaea]

Mine is not rooted in what the cause is.

It simply is against biological purpose and design.

There is a reason for male and female.

And there are economic benefits for the union and social benefits.

There is no purpose and is no economic benefit for the same sex union.

Anything against logical design or purpose should be not treated the same, nor would your hypotheticals affect my opinion how we should view it.

I don't believe if we find genetic disposition toward bipolar disorder, pedofilia or other social disorders that we should deem them socially acceptable simply because of genetic causation.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't believe if we find genetic disposition toward bipolar disorder, pedofilia or other social disorders that we should deem them socially acceptable simply because of genetic causation.

So in other words you would see a genetic disposition towards homosexuality as a sickness?

What's the purpose of that sickness in the eternal realm of things if it comes from creation?

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It simply is against biological purpose and design.

If you accept the premise that homosexualism is biological, then you cannot then say that it is "against biological purpose and design." You may choose to reject the premise, but I believe the question was a hypothetical one based on homsexualism being biological.

Originally Posted by Archaea

And there are economic benefits for the union and social benefits.

There is no purpose and is no economic benefit for the same sex union.

What are the economic benefits of mormonism? Should we legislate against it because it doesn't benefit society as a whole? If you ask a homosexual, I'm sure he'll tell you that are definite benefits to society's acceptance of homoseuality.

I don't believe if we find genetic disposition toward bipolar disorder, pedofilia or other social disorders that we should deem them socially acceptable simply because of genetic causation.

One man's social disorder is another man's way of life. I might think that people who enjoy hip-hop have a social disorder, but I hardly think we should legislate them out of existence.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

So in other words you would see a genetic disposition towards homosexuality as a sickness?

What's the purpose of that sickness in the eternal realm of things if it comes from creation?

God puts things into motion, with a very complex calculus, knowing bad thigns spin out of control by virtue of how evolution works. There are disorders, aberrations from the norm. Some are positive, hence natural selection and some are negative, hence disorders, which inhibit normal functioning.

Sicknesses originate from a bacterial or viral dysfunction. Disorders are more complex originating out of genetic imperfections.

Somebody with SSA has a disorder disallowing or inhibiting that person from normal male-female functioning, at least at the emotional level.

Interaction between same sexes on a sexual level may be normal for them, but it's not normal when taken into context the primal purpose of male-female sexual interaction.

It is normal for a person with bipolar disorder to experience manic and depressive mood swings, but that inhibits interaction at the same level of functionality of non-disordered persons.

Functionality of humans is to be determined along expected performance levels. Obviously deviations from expectations are to be expected but not desired.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

If you accept the premise that homosexualism is biological, then you cannot then say that it is "against biological purpose and design." You may choose to reject the premise, but I believe the question was a hypothetical one based on homsexualism being biological.

Entirely false. The primordial purpose of sex is procreation. Anything inhibiting normal sexual functioning in the performing of this primordial purpose is linked to disorder. This does NOT exclude the secondary purpose of uniting emotional and recreating, but if sex by design is only recreating, then just have gang bang places. Nature did not intend for it to be so.

Originally Posted by non sequitur

What are the economic benefits of mormonism? Should we legislate against it because it doesn't benefit society as a whole? If you ask a homosexual, I'm sure he'll tell you that are definite benefits to society's acceptance of homoseuality.

There are many. First the concept of mormonism, as can be shown demographically leads citizens to eschew social networks, thereby lessening the tax burden.

Second, mormons tend to toward law compliance, reducing enforcement costs.

And there are many other economic benefits, including the tendency toward emphasis on education so that the workforce acquires greater skillsets.

Originally Posted by non sequitur

One man's social disorder is another man's way of life. I might think that people who enjoy hip-hop have a social disorder, but I hardly think we should legislate them out of existence.

That is a nihilistic conclusion that there is never anything wrong with anything. I have stated my reasons why it is a disorder from the basic nature of gender. So while that phrase is an easy out, it's a cop-out.