Likening loving homosexual behavior, sacred within marriage, supported by society, on the front line against abortion as gay married homosexual men are, to biology in the form of "Cancer?" You could surely have drawn a better than that yer'revvrend. One of society's major goals is in stamping out diseases, eh? But perhaps not in stamping out talk or short people, or curly hair? Or was tolerance of extending the sacraments to all of the Lord's children the goal there, and your post was subversive enough I missed it?
Yes. We could say that if there was a 100% biological basis for homosexual desire, then it would be precisely the same as ethnic characteristics as a result of our ancestors.
The problems would be manifold. Sexuality is not homosexual or heterosexual. At the very least it would be a scale of one to ten with lots of genetic expression of such varieties of desire.
No, there was no implication from me that homosexuality is akin to Cancer as a negative. The earlier model in the unethical history of the treatment of homosexuals was that it was a disease that had a biological as well as a mental component. It would be well for all enlightened people to understand and watch documentaries about that barbaric practice. It's not surprising given the earlier idea that a catch-all means of curing various perceived "female ills" was to cut out their uterus as well. We forget that while medicine is ancient, the later codification of it for treatment, pharmacologic agents and herbs, massage by osteopathic means and ancient massage, and allopathic medicine is a bunch of intelligent guesswork.
What I fear will happen is that someone will point to some part of the brain (as some have tried to do with twin studies) and say, "This here collection of neurons form a mass that influences behavior. It's the seat of sexual desire for a homosexual." When surgeons hear that kind of thing, they think of excising it like a tumor.
Don't spin my words please, but I'm glad for the clarification. Cancer is not a personality flaw, or a failure in a human being, but a condition that likely arises by extremely complex mutagens to the body that confers an inability to cope with an out of control growth. I'm saying that homosexuality is not as simple as that extremely complex condition, but might have a biological basis genetically (as Cancer is sure to have).
As complex as we are as human beings with the concept of Self, then the components of Self in mental health are partially adjusted based upon our physical bodies. But our "Self" is a product of our experiences, education, our rigidity, our spiritual background, our ideas about the forbidden, our risk-taking, our response to upbringing, etc. It would be overly simplistic to say that some folks are naturally gay.
What I see happening, especially in young women, is an open experimentation of their sexuality. They will often say, and I perfectly understand what they mean, "I fall in love with people, not their gender or their sexual orientation." How many women have said, "I kissed a woman and I liked it." It's highly likely that this form of sexual identity is not about genetics but admiration and desire and affinity and risk-taking, etc.
This could be similar to sexual expression based upon a prison environment as well because of whatever the formation of Self is outside the prison, sexual desire continues and evolves, and so you have situational homosexuality as well as a seperate phenomena. Lest someone spin my words, that evolution of sexual desires happens as we age. The things that excited us alter through time, cause some to develop paraphilias, some to be particularly excited by one type of role play, to diminish based upon an alteration of physical appearance, etc. It's not a negative, but that sexual identity is not static but dynamic.
To say that homosexuality is entirely 100% biologically derived is very unlikely.
