New Study Shows Gay Men Have Variation Of DNA Over Straight men

[Frank Cannon]

And what happens when the political winds change?

Homosexuals were also exterminated by this junk science in the Nazi Camps.

That's a part of 'What Difference It Makes' at this time in history or any other time.

If you were not locked into your provincial western world thinking and looked around, you would see that gays are still be exterminated. The fact that you overlooked that brings back the question what difference does it make.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

If you were not locked into your provincial western world thinking and looked around, you would see that gays are still be exterminated. The fact that you overlooked that brings back the question what difference does it make.

Here Frank. In the U.S.

The way these scum sterilized 20,000 genetic defectives/feeble minded/undesireables in California.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/health/california-forced-sterilizations/index.html

What happens after we hit our 2nd or 3rd currency devaluation in the United States and Govt realizes it can't afford to toss anymore crumbs to the people to buy their acquiescence?

It may not be gays.

Next time it could be political conservatives.

Govt is funding this research. So Govt owns it.

Letting Govt buy a hammer like this one is a good idea, how?

Have we all so soon forgotten Margaret Sanger and her 'Human Weeds'?

All part and parcel of the same horror.

[massadvj]

If homosexuality was completely genetic, then all identical twins would be homosexuals.  Studies of identical twins reveal that they are more likely to be gay than brothers or fraternal twins, but nowhere near 100 percent.  Most studies range from 30-50 percent gay cocordance among identical twins.  This suggests a genetic factor, but that sexual orientation is also due to non-genetic factors.  By definition, everything non-genetic is "learned."

The hard science on this is unambiguous.  The politics of it is another matter.

https://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/twinstudieswhatdotheyshowp40.php

[Suppressed]

The field of Behavioral Genetics itself is not a single micron closer to proving Any of its specious crap today than it was when Joseph Mengele was using it as an excuse for his ghoulish experiments.

Ad hominem.

In reality, though they won't "prove" anything, they have made great strides. For example, the Minnesota Twin Family Study (MTFS) has shown that twins raised apart still have similar behaviors.

Do the genetics force behavior? No. But that doesn't mean they don't affect them.

[RoosGirl]

Here Frank. In the U.S.

The way these scum sterilized 20,000 genetic defectives/feeble minded/undesireables in California.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/health/california-forced-sterilizations/index.html

What happens after we hit our 2nd or 3rd currency devaluation in the United States and Govt realizes it can't afford to toss anymore crumbs to the people to buy their acquiescence?

It may not be gays.

Next time it could be political conservatives.

Govt is funding this research. So Govt owns it.

Letting Govt buy a hammer like this one is a good idea, how?

Have we all so soon forgotten Margaret Sanger and her 'Human Weeds'?

All part and parcel of the same horror.

People are going to find a "valid" reason to hate the people they do.  The gov't does stuff all the time that is not bound in common sense much less solid scientific analysis.

[Oceander]

If homosexuality was completely genetic, then all identical twins would be homosexuals.  Studies of identical twins reveal that they are more likely to be gay than brothers or fraternal twins, but nowhere near 100 percent.  Most studies range from 30-50 percent gay cocordance among identical twins.  This suggests a genetic factor, but that sexual orientation is also due to non-genetic factors.  By definition, everything non-genetic is "learned."

The hard science on this is unambiguous.  The politics of it is another matter.

https://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/twinstudieswhatdotheyshowp40.php

Yes, but you have conceded the basic argument, which is that there is a genetic aspect to being gay.  The rest is simply filling in the prosaic details. 

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Ad hominem.

In reality, though they won't "prove" anything, they have made great strides. For example, the Minnesota Twin Family Study (MTFS) has shown that twins raised apart still have similar behaviors.

Do the genetics force behavior? No. But that doesn't mean they don't affect them.

Proof please. If anything here is ad hominum it's Your assertions.

PROOF. Provide it.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

People are going to find a "valid" reason to hate the people they do.  The gov't does stuff all the time that is not bound in common sense much less solid scientific analysis.

You got that right on the head.

Problem is allowing this stuff to cloak itself in science, which sounds better once Govt decides 'We Need A Program To Address This Problem.'

That is the point at which it becomes 'Katy Bar The Door.'

[Smokin Joe]

How come laypersons just fling their opinions about scientific subjects back and forth, with no mention of the experiments, data etc.?

--DNA science is in its infancy

--DNA science is being aggressively pursued for medical applications

--DNA science is already considered proved such that it is used for criminal justice, paternity, genealogy, etc.

--The rate of discoveries is accelerating, as if often the case in scientific breakthroughs.

--The subset called Epigenetics deals with nature/nurture combinations whereby environmental changes, wind up changing DNA over time.

People actually study such things, beyond holding pre-conceived opinions.

You left out: DNA science is being aggressively pursued for political applications.

After all those decades of the effects of Margaret Sanger and her ilk, the eugenic aspect cannot be ignored. It may not show now, but it will--again.

[Fishrrman]

To Whose Benefit asks:
"If a person's Lesbian/Gay Behavior is in their DNA it will then be passed along to offspring, how ever many generations removed. Dominant/Recessive genes etc.
Since Homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce, then Why haven't those recessive genes already eliminated themselves out of the human gene pool?"

Did you read the post I put up here?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2846164/posts?page=67#67

"A naturally-occuring aberration from the norm..."

(I guess no one else read it, either)

[massadvj]

Yes, but you have conceded the basic argument, which is that there is a genetic aspect to being gay.  The rest is simply filling in the prosaic details.

I think the evidence is clear that there is indeed a genetic component, but not enough to say that all gays are "born that way," which is what most gay activists insist we believe.

[Sanguine]

I think the evidence is clear that there is indeed a genetic component, but not enough to say that all gays are "born that way," which is what most gay activists insist we believe.

I can agree with that.

[Suppressed]

If homosexuality was completely genetic, then all identical twins would be homosexuals.  Studies of identical twins reveal that they are more likely to be gay than brothers or fraternal twins, but nowhere near 100 percent.  Most studies range from 30-50 percent gay cocordance among identical twins.  This suggests a genetic factor, but that sexual orientation is also due to non-genetic factors.  By definition, everything non-genetic is "learned."

The hard science on this is unambiguous.  The politics of it is another matter.

https://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/twinstudieswhatdotheyshowp40.php

No offense meant, but you and the study ignore in utero possibilities. Fraternal twins' pre-natal environment could be the "environment" piece, not just post-natal.

IOW, the following is false, if by learning you mean during rearing:

By definition, everything non-genetic is "learned."

[Suppressed]

Proof please. If anything here is ad hominum it's Your assertions.

PROOF. Provide it.

It appears you do not understand the definition of "ad hominem".

Proof of what? I provided evidence.

[massadvj]

No offense meant, but you and the study ignore in utero possibilities. Fraternal twins' pre-natal environment could be the "environment" piece, not just post-natal.

IOW, the following is false, if by learning you mean during rearing:

Learning can occur any time.  In psychology, anything not genetic is "learned."  I suppose that includes in the womb.  Every study I am aware of shows a continuum of concordance of homosexuality from low concordance among unrelated men, to higher concordance among brothers, then even higher among fraternal twins and finally highest among identical twins.  That is exactly what one would expect if there was a genetic factor.  But again, the fact that not even a majority (in most studies) of identical twins are concordant means that genetics is not the primary determinant.

[Suppressed]

Learning can occur any time.  In psychology, anything not genetic is "learned."  I suppose that includes in the womb.  Every study I am aware of shows a continuum of concordance of homosexuality from low concordance among unrelated men, to higher concordance among brothers, then even higher among fraternal twins and finally highest among identical twins.  That is exactly what one would expect if there was a genetic factor.  But again, the fact that not even a majority (in most studies) of identical twins are concordant means that genetics is not the primary determinant.

A better term would be "environmental" factors. For example, if twins were reared together in a home with formaldehyde-containing products, it's not "learned" but might affect them similarly.

[Jazzhead]

I think the evidence is clear that there is indeed a genetic component, but not enough to say that all gays are "born that way," which is what most gay activists insist we believe.

That's a reasonable statement.   Most of the gays I know with whom I've talked to about the subject think they were always that way,  but none are in the category of promiscuous, bathhouse-lifestyle gays.   They all yearned to find their true love and settle down,  and have been in stable relationships for decades.   It is for these friends that I've become such an advocate for gay marriage -  and why I could not ultimately stay in a church that insists they be labeled abominations.   

It's best not to paint any group of people with the same broad brush (and yes, that goes for evangelical Christians too, and I admit I need to be less judgmental in that regard).   Those who've suffered abuse and degradation are, I'd think, more likely to engage in promiscuous, self-hating behavior.   And those who came from more stable environments likely want the same things many of the rest of us do.    There's nothing more satisfying than at the end of the day than knowing that you've been loved,  for then, for now, and (I trust and pray) forever. 

[Smokin Joe]

I think the evidence is clear that there is indeed a genetic component, but not enough to say that all gays are "born that way," which is what most gay activists insist we believe.

That sounds reasonable, and the genetic component may well affect the endocrine system. Hormonal variation could account for a lot, including behavioural traits and tendencies.

[massadvj]

That's a reasonable statement.   Most of the gays I know with whom I've talked to about the subject think they were always that way,  but none are in the category of promiscuous, bathhouse-lifestyle gays.   They all yearned to find their true love and settle down,  and have been in stable relationships for decades.   It is for these friends that I've become such an advocate for gay marriage -  and why I could not ultimately stay in a church that insists they be labeled abominations. 

We recently had this discussion at the church I attend (Lutheran).  The Evangelical Lutheran Church is moving more and more in the direction of accepting gays, whereas there are a number of local splinter groups joining a more doctrinaire organization called "Common Core" in order to announce themselves as more orthodox.  We had a very contentious meeting last Sunday as to whether we should join Common Core. 

The discussion was quite robust and thoughtful, with the orthodox types talking about the bible as our source for the rules of morality, and how if we accept the bible as the word of God, we have to regard homosexuality as a sin, just as all sex outside of marriage is a sin, and that gay marriage falls outside the bounds of the bible's definition of marriage.  The liberals in the congregation talked about being on the wrong side of history, and compared this to slavery (quite a compelling argument in central Pennsylvania, in a congregation made up of the great grandchildren of abolitionists). 

Because I am not a member of the congregation (although my wife and I have been going there every Sunday for over 6 months), the pastor asked us to count the votes.  It was 60/40 in favor of the Common Core, which surprised me.  I thought it would be higher.

Myself, I see both sides of this, and I don't choose my church based on this issue.  My wife was Anglican before she moved to the USA, and she had a gay female pastor in her old church for many years, so she does not see how this is any big deal.  I have sympathy for those who say we don't choose what is in the bible, it is fixed.  It is rather unambiguous when it comes to this issue.  On the other hand, I think I'd rather be in a church that was more inclusive, and I am certain Jesus Christ himself would as well.

I guess that is the underlying question: how would Christ regard homosexuals?  I have no doubt He would love them.  But would He regard them as in need of repentance?  Or would He recognize gay love as "love" in the biblical sense.  I simply don't know for certain.  The Christ I understand in my heart would perform gay marriages.  But the one I read about in the pages of the New Testament would not.  That, for me, is my conundrum.  Nonetheless, it doesn't matter what the majority of people in the church I attend think.

For me, my Christian morality is a personal journey, and I am not one to join groups.  And so I will worship in pretty much any place I am welcome.

[driftdiver]

We recently had this discussion at the church I attend (Lutheran).  The Evangelical Lutheran Church is moving more and more in the direction of accepting gays, whereas there are a number of local splinter groups joining a more doctrinaire organization called "Common Core" in order to announce themselves as more orthodox.  We had a very contentious meeting last Sunday as to whether we should join Common Core. 

The discussion was quite robust and thoughtful, with the orthodox types talking about the bible as our source for the rules of morality, and how if we accept the bible as the word of God, we have to regard homosexuality as a sin, just as all sex outside of marriage is a sin, and that gay marriage falls outside the bounds of the bible's definition of marriage.  The liberals in the congregation talked about being on the wrong side of history, and compared this to slavery (quite a compelling argument in central Pennsylvania, in a congregation made up of the great grandchildren of abolitionists). 

Because I am not a member of the congregation (although my wife and I have been going there every Sunday for over 6 months), the pastor asked us to count the votes.  It was 60/40 in favor of the Common Core, which surprised me.  I thought it would be higher.

Myself, I see both sides of this, and I don't choose my church based on this issue.  My wife was Anglican before she moved to the USA, and she had a gay female pastor in her old church for many years, so she does not see how this is any big deal.  I have sympathy for those who say we don't choose what is in the bible, it is fixed.  It is rather unambiguous when it comes to this issue.  On the other hand, I think I'd rather be in a church that was more inclusive, and I am certain Jesus Christ himself would as well.

I guess that is the underlying question: how would Christ regard homosexuals?  I have no doubt He would love them.  But would He regard them as in need of repentance?  Or would He recognize gay love as "love" in the biblical sense.  I simply don't know for certain.  The Christ I understand in my heart would perform gay marriages.  But the one I read about in the pages of the New Testament would not.  That, for me, is my conundrum.  Nonetheless, it doesn't matter what the majority of people in the church I attend think.

For me, my Christian morality is a personal journey, and I am not one to join groups.  And so I will worship in pretty much any place I am welcome.

@massadvj
I'm not sure I understand, if you believe the Bible is the word of God but then you don't believe in what it says?  The Bible shows Jesus would treat all people with love but that doesn't mean he would condone sin.

The old testament defines marriage and establishes that sex is between 1 man and 1 woman in marriage.  The NT affirms this.  Its not about hate its about God setting up his law and us doing our best to follow them.

[Idiot]

@massadvj
I'm not sure I understand, if you believe the Bible is the word of God but then you don't believe in what it says?  The Bible shows Jesus would treat all people with love but that doesn't mean he would condone sin.

The old testament defines marriage and establishes that sex is between 1 man and 1 woman in marriage.  The NT affirms this.  Its not about hate its about God setting up his law and us doing our best to follow them.

Amen....

[massadvj]

@massadvj
I'm not sure I understand, if you believe the Bible is the word of God but then you don't believe in what it says?  The Bible shows Jesus would treat all people with love but that doesn't mean he would condone sin.

The old testament defines marriage and establishes that sex is between 1 man and 1 woman in marriage.  The NT affirms this.  Its not about hate its about God setting up his law and us doing our best to follow them.

I fully understand.

[Restored]

That's a reasonable statement.   Most of the gays I know with whom I've talked to about the subject think they were always that way, 

Which is odd because most people don't believe that. Most people believe they started becoming romantically attracted after a certain age.
Saying that attractions are genetic is ridiculous. There is a genetic predisposition to be attracted to bikers or women in leggings? Not only that, attractions change over time.

[mirraflake]

Next time it could be political conservatives.

Govt is funding this research. So Govt owns it.

Not conservatives but poor people, those who are a drain on society, uneducated, unemployed etc. People with money liberal  and conservative alike will always be ok.

I fully predict one day third world countries who refuse to keep their populations in check will be flown over by the a special plane to sterilize the masses or it will be put in their water supply. Especially since robots are taking over and million of current working folks will be out of  a job.

@To-Whose-Benefit?

[Jazzhead]

Thanks for your thoughtful response,  massadvj

I have sympathy for those who say we don't choose what is in the bible, it is fixed.  It is rather unambiguous when it comes to this issue.  On the other hand, I think I'd rather be in a church that was more inclusive, and I am certain Jesus Christ himself would as well.

I guess that is the underlying question: how would Christ regard homosexuals?  I have no doubt He would love them.  But would He regard them as in need of repentance?  Or would He recognize gay love as "love" in the biblical sense.  I simply don't know for certain.  The Christ I understand in my heart would perform gay marriages.  But the one I read about in the pages of the New Testament would not.  That, for me, is my conundrum. 

This,  for me, is the bottom line - what would Jesus do?   And I cannot believe, will not believe, that He would consider homosexuals in monogamous, covenant relationships to be abominations.   And that the Christ I understand in my heart would indeed perform gay marriages.   

For now at least,  I cannot reconcile my love for and understanding of Christ with membership in the Christian community.   My faith is, for now, a solitary undertaking.   

[roamer_1]

I guess that is the underlying question: how would Christ regard homosexuals?  I have no doubt He would love them.  But would He regard them as in need of repentance?  Or would He recognize gay love as "love" in the biblical sense.  I simply don't know for certain.  The Christ I understand in my heart would perform gay marriages.  But the one I read about in the pages of the New Testament would not.  That, for me, is my conundrum.  Nonetheless, it doesn't matter what the majority of people in the church I attend think.

@massadvj
This is precisely how men will convince themselves to embrace the abomination that causes desolation.

The 'christ' in your heart cannot be the Christ. The two are diametrically opposed. In fact, if the Christ you see in the New Testament is different from the Christ you see in the old, then even in that is disparity. Confusion.

[Idiot]

Which is odd because most people don't believe that. Most people believe they started becoming romantically attracted after a certain age.
Saying that attractions are genetic is ridiculous. There is a genetic predisposition to be attracted to bikers or women in leggings? Not only that, attractions change over time.

Tell me about it....I have this uncontrollable attraction to Doritos.  Not to worry...I'm seeking help.  ^-^

[Idiot]

@massadvj
I'm not sure I understand, if you believe the Bible is the word of God but then you don't believe in what it says?  The Bible shows Jesus would treat all people with love but that doesn't mean he would condone sin.

The old testament defines marriage and establishes that sex is between 1 man and 1 woman in marriage.  The NT affirms this.  Its not about hate its about God setting up his law and us doing our best to follow them.

God destroyed an entire city because of it's sexual immorality.  I'd say He takes this pretty seriously.....

[Restored]

And I cannot believe, will not believe, that He would consider homosexuals in monogamous, covenant relationships to be abominations.   

Why just monogamous, covenant relationships? Do you think Jesus would hate people who chose to have an occasional fling? How intolerant.

[Smokin Joe]

@massadvj
I'm not sure I understand, if you believe the Bible is the word of God but then you don't believe in what it says?  The Bible shows Jesus would treat all people with love but that doesn't mean he would condone sin.

The old testament defines marriage and establishes that sex is between 1 man and 1 woman in marriage.  The NT affirms this.  Its not about hate its about God setting up his law and us doing our best to follow them.

Precisely, and well said.

[Sanguine]

Precisely, and well said.

Yes, it is.

[Jazzhead]

Why just monogamous, covenant relationships? Do you think Jesus would hate people who chose to have an occasional fling? How intolerant.

Adultery is sinful.  It is sinful because it represents the breaking of an oath, the breaking of faith with one's partner.  It is, in short, a betrayal. 

A gay couple in an enduring monogamous relationship is not sinful, IMO.  Obviously,  that view of mine is hardly authoritative, and the usual suspects will condemn such couples as perverts and abominations.   Well, it is that kind of bigotry that is driving good folks from the flock.   It certainly drove me away.   But, then again, as some here point out,  I'm not "good folks".     

[Sanguine]

Adultery is sinful.  It is sinful because it represents the breaking of an oath, the breaking of faith with one's partner.  It is, in short, a betrayal. 

A gay couple in an enduring monogamous relationship is not sinful, IMO.  Obviously,  that view of mine is hardly authoritative, and the usual suspects will condemn such couples as perverts and abominations.   Well, it is that kind of bigotry that is driving good folks from the flock.   It certainly drove me away.   But, then again, as some here point out,  I'm not "good folks".   

That's certainly an interesting way of looking at things, Jazzy.  But, we all tend to want things the way we want them to be, whether right or wrong.

[musiclady]

Adultery is sinful.  It is sinful because it represents the breaking of an oath, the breaking of faith with one's partner.  It is, in short, a betrayal. 

A gay couple in an enduring monogamous relationship is not sinful, IMO.  Obviously,  that view of mine is hardly authoritative, and the usual suspects will condemn such couples as perverts and abominations.   Well, it is that kind of bigotry that is driving good folks from the flock.   It certainly drove me away.   But, then again, as some here point out,  I'm not "good folks".   

It's not bigotry that drove you away.

It's Scriptural truth that you decided not to accept.

[Jazzhead]

It's not bigotry that drove you away.

It's Scriptural truth that you decided not to accept.

One of my friends, who's been with his partner for over 20 years and is the salt of the earth,  was rejected by his own family on the basis of that "Scriptural truth".   

I've seen firsthand what damage is caused by this "Scriptural truth".   

And you can forgive me for calling it by its rightful name.   

 

[musiclady]

One of my friends, who's been with his partner for over 20 years and is the salt of the earth,  was rejected by his own family on the basis of that "Scriptural truth".   

I've seen firsthand what damage is caused by this "Scriptural truth".   

And you can forgive me for calling it by its rightful name.

Sorry, friend, but God isn't a bigot.

What human beings do to ruin relationships because someone is doing something they don't approve of, is an entirely different thing than being obedient to all of Scripture, and treating sinners (that would be everyone) with love, but still recognizing the truth of the sin.

What you continue to do (as do all who reject God's truth) is that you look at sinful human beings for your evidence, and not at the Word of God, itself, God's character, and the person of Jesus Christ.

As long as you look at sinners to guide your opinions, you will believe what you feel like believing, as you reject Scriptural truth.

Fix your eyes on Jesus, and all this confusion and anger will end.

[roamer_1]

Adultery is sinful.  It is sinful because it represents the breaking of an oath, the breaking of faith with one's partner.  It is, in short, a betrayal. 

A gay couple in an enduring monogamous relationship is not sinful, IMO.  Obviously,  that view of mine is hardly authoritative, and the usual suspects will condemn such couples as perverts and abominations.   Well, it is that kind of bigotry that is driving good folks from the flock.   It certainly drove me away.   But, then again, as some here point out,  I'm not "good folks".   

The purpose of marriage is symbolic of Christ and his Church. Male and female, with all of the ensuing descriptive parameters as ordained in Torah following. It is an image - A picture in so many dimensions as to be nearly infinite. Just as God, describing himself as Father, is an image.

Coloring is to be done within the lines, or the picture is ruined.
And no, you don't get to make your own picture, or it is in your image rather than God's.

[driftdiver]

Thanks for your thoughtful response,  massadvj

This,  for me, is the bottom line - what would Jesus do?   And I cannot believe, will not believe, that He would consider homosexuals in monogamous, covenant relationships to be abominations.   And that the Christ I understand in my heart would indeed perform gay marriages.   

.....

@Jazzhead

Fortunately we don't to have rely on rumor or guessing.  We have historical documents from people that were there who can tell us what Jesus did and said.   Those tell us he affirmed the OT writings in this regard.  Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

[driftdiver]

Adultery is sinful.  It is sinful because it represents the breaking of an oath, the breaking of faith with one's partner.  It is, in short, a betrayal. 

A gay couple in an enduring monogamous relationship is not sinful, IMO.  Obviously,  that view of mine is hardly authoritative, and the usual suspects will condemn such couples as perverts and abominations.   Well, it is that kind of bigotry that is driving good folks from the flock.   It certainly drove me away.   But, then again, as some here point out,  I'm not "good folks".   

@Jazzhead
Adultry is sinful because it goes against Gods laws. 

[roamer_1]

One of my friends, who's been with his partner for over 20 years and is the salt of the earth,  was rejected by his own family on the basis of that "Scriptural truth".   

I've seen firsthand what damage is caused by this "Scriptural truth".   

And you can forgive me for calling it by its rightful name.

Ahh, so it's the family's fault, eh?

[Smokin Joe]

Adultery is sinful.  It is sinful because it represents the breaking of an oath, the breaking of faith with one's partner.  It is, in short, a betrayal. 

A gay couple in an enduring monogamous relationship is not sinful, IMO.  Obviously,  that view of mine is hardly authoritative, and the usual suspects will condemn such couples as perverts and abominations.   Well, it is that kind of bigotry that is driving good folks from the flock.   It certainly drove me away.   But, then again, as some here point out,  I'm not "good folks".   

Does that mean if two Orthodox Jews eat pork together it's Kosher?

 

[Jazzhead]

Ahh, so it's the family's fault, eh?

I decline to be part of a religious community that practices bigotry and advocates cruelty.   I'd rather follow Christ outside the context of that community.     

[driftdiver]

I decline to be part of a religious community that practices bigotry and advocates cruelty.   I'd rather follow Christ outside the context of that community.   

@Jazzhead
By your rules Jesus is bigoted.    Since he will sit in judgement on us and send us to hell I guess you'd call him cruel too.

I'd urge you to rethink your position.  Seek some counseling from a qualified pastor not a feel good wannabe.

[Restored]

Adultery is sinful.  It is sinful because it represents the breaking of an oath, the breaking of faith with one's partner.  It is, in short, a betrayal. 

A gay couple in an enduring monogamous relationship is not sinful, IMO.  Obviously,  that view of mine is hardly authoritative, and the usual suspects will condemn such couples as perverts and abominations.   Well, it is that kind of bigotry that is driving good folks from the flock.   It certainly drove me away.   But, then again, as some here point out,  I'm not "good folks".   

It's not driving good people away. There are no good people. Even Jesus said that. The problem comes when we decide things are "good" based on our own desires. It used to be that slavery was "good". Jim Crow was "good". That's because "good" is subjective.
Scripture is not subjective. It doesn't bend to our desires. It only drives away people who say "My ways are better than God's ways".  It turns them over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh. They prefer the darkness where things can be hidden. When Scripture opposes their desires, they flee from it.
I was driven out of the church because I am a conservative. So I went to a church that doesn't shy away from the hard parts of Scripture like my previous church. It says what it says.

[Restored]

I decline to be part of a religious community that practices bigotry and advocates cruelty.   I'd rather follow Christ outside the context of that community.   

I bet you are part of a religious community that practices bigotry and advocates cruelty. It just practices bigotry and advocates cruelty that you agree with.
Our local Unitarian church condemned churches that practice bigotry and advocate cruelty. IOW they were bigoted against people who disagree with them. They mocked and denigrated other churches that didn't practice their form of tolerance. When I pointed out their intolerance in their sermons they posted online, they took the sermons off-line.

[roamer_1]

I decline to be part of a religious community that practices bigotry and advocates cruelty.   I'd rather follow Christ outside the context of that community.   

I don't care about the church necessarily - Though you paint with a broad brush.
It is the Word that I care about, which you inevitably must call bigoted and cruel... removing law, which removes both discernment and judgement... Which in turn, removes the need for a Savior. In which case, why do you follow at all, and where does it go? There is nothing left to follow.

[musiclady]

I don't care about the church necessarily - Though you paint with a broad brush.
It is the Word that I care about, which you inevitably must call bigoted and cruel... removing law, which removes both discernment and judgement... Which in turn, removes the need for a Savior. In which case, why do you follow at all, and where does it go? There is nothing left to follow.

 

[Restored]

I had a friend who used to complain about drunk drivers all the time. Then he got a DUI. Suddenly, the police were jackboots who illegally detained people who weren't hurting anyone but just had a few drinks.

The law points out the duplicity of man. Grace is worthless to the man who isn't doing anything wrong.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I don't care about the church necessarily - Though you paint with a broad brush.
It is the Word that I care about, which you inevitably must call bigoted and cruel... removing law, which removes both discernment and judgement... Which in turn, removes the need for a Savior. In which case, why do you follow at all, and where does it go? There is nothing left to follow.

He has never understood that a conservative first and foremost is a social conservative, meaning one has to have morality and is subject to specific rules which the Creator made for us to live by.  After that, one uses that foundation to establish fiscal conservatism, or any other type of conservatism to complete what is called a 'conservative'.

If one does not establish the base foundation, the rest is useless.

[Jazzhead]

He has never understood that a conservative first and foremost is a social conservative, meaning one has to have morality and is subject to specific rules which the Creator made for us to live by.  After that, one uses that foundation to establish fiscal conservatism, or any other type of conservatism to complete what is called a 'conservative'.

If one does not establish the base foundation, the rest is useless.

I agree that a conservative needs to have a firm moral grounding, and to try his/her level best to live in accordance with such moral grounding on a daily basis.   The Church, can, of course, provide such a grounding.

But a "social conservative" has a specific political meaning, and includes the idea that the government enforce "Biblical" morality,  including behavior that can objectively be seen as victimless.   That's certainly not what many conservatives believe - many want government to be essentially limited, and to keep its nose out of the bedroom as well as the boardroom.   The government, of course, has a role to play with respect to the redress of rights violations,  and to administer the law fairly and in accordance with the principle of equal protection.   But too many social conservatives, like Roy Moore, scoff at the notion of equal protection, at least with respect to folks unlike themselves.    The Constitutional separation of church and state is one of the pillars of our Republic,  and must be defended against those who would prefer a theocracy.